Modify an existing KikoBooks vendor by supplying the vendor ID and updated details such as contact info, tax ID, payment terms, or billing address.
Update an existing vendor in KikoBooks. Provide the vendor ID and the fields to update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor | Yes | ||
| vendor_id | Yes | The Vendor ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether omitted fields are cleared, what permissions are required, or what happens if the vendor ID does not exist.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the required inputs. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object containing a dozen undocumented fields. The description does not address update semantics, error behavior, or the shape of the nested payload, leaving significant gaps an agent would need filled.
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 only 50%: vendor_id is documented in the schema, but the nested 'vendor' object and its twelve sub-properties have no descriptions at all. The description adds nothing beyond restating that fields should be provided, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing vendor in KikoBooks'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_vendor, delete_vendor, or get_vendor, but the verb+resource combination makes the purpose clear.
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?
It says to 'Provide the vendor ID and the fields to update,' which is minimal how-to guidance, but there is no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. delete or create). No exclusions or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.