Change an action's status, assignee, priority, or due date to reflect updates in your schedule.
Update an action — change its status, assignee, priority, due date, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| assignee | No | ||
| due_date | No | ||
| event_id | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| action_id | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says fields can be changed, but does not disclose that this is a partial update, whether the action must already exist, whether mutations are irreversible, or what the response contains. This is a minimal statement of mutation without meaningful behavioral context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the operation and resource. It is concise and easy to parse, though the 'etc.' is vague and slightly weakens 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 no annotations, no output schema, and the presence of sibling tools like complete_action and delete_action, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify partial update behavior, required identifier, field constraints, or how it relates to complete_action, which are important for an agent to call this tool correctly.
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 needed to compensate. It names a few parameters (status, assignee, priority, due date) but omits action_id, title, description, and event_id, and the 'etc.' leaves the full parameter set unclear. It adds little meaning beyond the schema's property names.
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 action: 'Update an action' with a resource and a list of mutable fields (status, assignee, priority, due date). It is easy to tell this from update_event, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from complete_action, which could be a special case of updating status.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_action, and no explanation of partial-update semantics. The description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.