Update an ICAP server configuration in HPE Security Director Cloud by providing its UUID and a JSON body matching the target schema.
Update an ICAP server 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Update' without clarifying mutation behavior (e.g., idempotency, partial vs full replacement, validation of body). This is minimal for a mutation operation.
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, focused sentence with no extraneous information. Perfectly concise for a simple update operation.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description is overly terse. It does not mention that the UUID must correspond to an existing ICAP server, the expected format of the body, or any side effects of the update.
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 coverage is 50% (body has a description, uuid does not). The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter names, failing to explain constraints or typical usage for the body parameter.
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 verb 'Update', the resource 'ICAP server object', and the method 'by UUID'. It distinguishes from siblings like create, get, list, delete, and other update tools.
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?
The description implicitly indicates this tool is for updating an existing ICAP server by UUID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites such as ensuring the UUID exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.