Update an existing organization in your Kanka campaign by providing its ID and new data. Keep worldbuilding records current with this direct API action.
Update an existing organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It gives no indication of whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to omitted fields, whether permissions are needed, or what the response contains.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It merely restates the tool's purpose and provides no structural guidance about parameters or usage.
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?
With three required parameters, a nested data object, no output schema, and no annotations, this tool needs substantial explanatory context. The description supplies none of it, making the tool almost entirely opaque to an agent.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'data' is an untyped object, and 'campaignId' and 'id' are unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their roles and formats.
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 names the action (update) and the resource (organization), and 'existing' signals this is not a create operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling update_* tools beyond the resource type.
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 create_organization, delete_organization, or get_organization. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'existing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.