Update a Zendesk macro's title, description, or actions by specifying its ID.
Update an existing macro
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Macro ID to update | |
| title | No | Updated macro title | |
| actions | No | Updated actions | |
| description | No | Updated macro description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral detail. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what happens to unspecified fields, so the description provides no value beyond the annotations.
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 with zero wasted words. It is concise, though under-specified; this is not a penalty because it is not rambling.
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?
For an update tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., optional fields, partial vs full replacement), and the schema alone does not make the behavior obvious. An agent would need to infer critical details.
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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions no parameters, but the schema fully documents id, title, actions, and description, leaving no gap for the description to fill.
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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing macro'), making it clear this applies to an existing macro. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_macro/delete_macro beyond the verb, but the resource is distinct among siblings.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_macro or delete_macro. There are no conditions, exclusions, or implied context for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.