ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_accreditations_partial_updateUpdate part of a PMBOK accreditation record by ID, sending only the fields you want to change. Use it to correct or amend accreditation data without replacing the full entry.
api_pmbok_accreditations_partial_update
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the name does not contradict them. However, the description contributes nothing beyond those hints: no mention of what fields can be changed, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what a partial update returns.
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?
It is short but only because it is a bare identifier, not because it is efficiently written. There is no front-loaded purpose statement or structure to speak of; this is under-specification rather than conciseness.
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?
A mutation tool with an untyped free-form body parameter, no output schema, and zero schema documentation needs the description to carry substantial weight. Instead it repeats the name, leaving an agent unable to know what a valid body looks like or what the call will do.
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 says nothing about either parameter. Critically, 'body' is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true and no documented shape, so the description is the only place that could enumerate the patchable accreditation fields and it omits them entirely.
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 is the raw operation identifier repeated verbatim, which only implicitly conveys 'partial update of PMBOK accreditations'. It restates the name rather than describing the operation, so an agent gets no more information than it already had from the tool name.
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 indication of when to use this versus ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_accreditations_update, _object_retrieve, _list, or _batch_action_create. The 'partial_update' token hints at PATCH semantics but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.