BriefGate

Edit an item

update_item

Destructive

Change one item on an intake that is already with the client — its type, label, hint, whether it is required, and which file formats it accepts.

Reach for this when the field turns out to be the wrong shape: you asked for an image and the client only has their logo as a PDF, or what you asked for as a line of text is really a file. Widening the accepted formats or switching the type unblocks them without adding a duplicate item and waiving the original.

The item key cannot be changed — results come back under it, so renaming would break whatever reads them. Add a new item instead.

If the client has already answered and the change would make their answer invalid, the call fails and nothing is touched. Repeat it with discard_submitted_value: true to clear the answer and ask them again. A change that leaves their answer valid (a new label, a wider limit) never discards anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`help`	No	Hint under the label. null clears it.
`type`	No
`label`	No	Human-readable label shown to the client.
`options`	No
`pattern`	No
`item_key`	Yes	Key of the item to change.
`required`	No
`intake_id`	Yes	Intake ID returned by define_intake.
`constraints`	No	Same shape as define_intake, e.g. { "formats": ["svg","png","pdf"] }. null clears all constraints.
`discard_submitted_value`	No	Go ahead even though it throws away what the client already sent. Only set this after the call has failed once for that reason.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item`	No
`discarded_submitted_value`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026
- removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "item"
-]
```

Changed1 schema field changedSep 16, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "discarded_submitted_value": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "item": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "item"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description discloses critical behavior: item keys are immutable because results are keyed by them, invalidating a submitted answer fails the call without side effects, and only discard_submitted_value: true clears the answer. This gives the agent a clear mental model of failure modes and idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then builds context through usage scenarios, a hard constraint, and failure semantics. Every paragraph serves a distinct function with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive 10-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the essential operational context: when to use it, what cannot change, how invalidations behave, and how to force a resubmission. The output schema covers return values, so nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 60% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics for type switching, required flags, accepted formats, and the discard_submitted_value escape hatch. It does not elaborate on options or pattern, but the description significantly strengthens understanding of the key mutation parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change one item on an intake that is already with the client' and enumerates exactly which attributes can change (type, label, hint, required, accepted formats). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_items and update_intake.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('Reach for this when the field turns out to be the wrong shape'), explains the alternative approach ('Add a new item instead' when the key must change), and details the discard_submitted_value workflow after a failed call. No ambiguity remains about when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All BriefGate tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?