Update Speech Engine. Update a Speech Engine resource (partial update)
Bulk support: accepts speech_engine_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asr | No | ||
| tts | No | ||
| vad | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| turn | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| privacy | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| overrides | No | ||
| call_limits | No | ||
| conversation | No | ||
| speech_engine | No | ||
| speech_engine_id | Yes | ||
| speech_engine_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses 'partial update' semantics and bulk execution via speech_engine_ids, which adds useful context. However, it omits idempotency, bulk atomicity, return behavior, and permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is good, but the first sentence just restates the tool name and the second sentence adds only 'partial update'. Bulk support is the only genuinely new information. It could be condensed into one sentence without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a speech engine is, which fields are updatable, how partial updates interact with existing values, or what the response looks like. The agent is left with almost no guidance for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains speech_engine_ids for batched execution, while the remaining 14 parameters (asr, tts, vad, privacy, etc.) receive no semantic explanation beyond their schema names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Speech Engine', and mentions 'partial update' to distinguish from create/delete/get. Bulk support is also stated, making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous relative to its siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create/get/delete speech engine tools. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., engine must already exist) or mention any alternatives. Usage is only implied by the title and repetition of 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.