Update an address object by its UUID using the Security Director Cloud schema. Specify the UUID and matching JSON body to apply changes.
Update an address object by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention idempotency, error handling, or return value. A simple 'Update...' is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or requirements.
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 no extraneous words. It is concise but at the expense of completeness; a few more sentences would improve utility without harming 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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of a complex nested parameter (body), the description is severely incomplete. An agent lacks information on constructing the request body, expected output, error states, and any prerequisites.
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?
The description adds no semantic value to the parameters. The schema covers only one of two parameters (body has a generic description), and the tool description does not explain what fields the body should contain or the role of uuid. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description does not compensate.
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) and resource (address object) and the identifier (UUID). While it distinguishes from create/delete siblings, it doesn't elaborate on scope or constraints, but the purpose is immediately understandable.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create or delete). The context of use is entirely implied, and there are no prerequisites or selection criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.