Pega DX MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the partial update behavior and the PEGA System exclusion, which are useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what the response looks like (no output schema exists). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 concise and front-loaded, with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, clarifying the partial update behavior, and noting the PEGA System exclusion. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and key behavioral notes but lacks details on authentication (handled in schema), error scenarios, or response format. For a mutation tool with rich schema but no annotations or output schema, it should provide more context on outcomes and constraints.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it reinforces that only provided fields are updated and mentions the conditional save plan context. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Partially update an existing data record based on conditional save plan configured for a savable Data Page.' It specifies the verb ('partially update'), resource ('existing data record'), and scope ('savable Data Page'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'update_data_record_full' beyond the 'partial' vs 'full' naming distinction.

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 some implied usage guidance: it mentions 'Only updates the provided fields, leaving other fields unchanged' and 'Not supported for PEGA System of records.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_data_record_full' or other update tools, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions beyond the PEGA System limitation.

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