Pega DX MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive 'overrides the entire data record' behavior and mentions the conditional save plan dependency. However, it lacks details about permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens to unchanged fields. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose and context, the second clarifies the override behavior. Every word earns its place, and the most important information ('overrides the entire data record') is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and behavioral hints but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or the full implications of the 'conditional save plan' dependency. The description is functional but leaves the agent with unanswered questions about the tool's behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'data object containing all properties' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's already in the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the verb ('fully update'), resource ('existing data record'), and scope ('based on conditional save plan configured for a savable Data Page'). It distinguishes from sibling 'update_data_record_partial' by specifying 'overrides the entire data record' versus partial updates.

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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('overrides the entire data record'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the partial update sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'update_data_record_partial' directly.

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