glpi_update_itil_followup_templateUpdate an existing ITIL followup template by ID to change its content or settings in GLPI.
Update a followup template by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Fields to update | |
| templateId | Yes | Item ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of which fields are overwritten, required permissions, or whether omitted fields are preserved versus cleared. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a minimal contribution, not a contradiction.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. It is, however, terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuine economy, so it lands mid-range.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation semantics. Still missing for a destructive update tool: whether the 'input' object is a partial patch or a full replacement, and any permission or scope caveats. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, not more.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema ('Item ID' and 'Fields to update'). The description's phrase 'by ID' restates the schema rather than adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (followup template) with an identifying key (by ID), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling itil_followup_template tools (list/get/create) beyond what the name already implies.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus glpi_get_itil_followup_template, glpi_create_itil_followup_template, or glpi_list_itil_followup_templates. No prerequisites, no note that the template must already exist. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.