Update an IPS signature object by UUID to apply configuration changes in Security Director Cloud, using a JSON body that matches the target schema.
Update an IPS signature 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 compensate. It only states 'Update...by UUID' without disclosing whether the update is partial or full replacement, input validation, atomicity, or conflict handling.
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 sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, such as usage context or parameter specifics, for brevity.
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 annotations, no output schema, and two parameters (one complex), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or how to construct the body object.
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%, with only the body parameter having a description that is vague ('JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema'). The uuid parameter lacks description, and the tool description adds no further meaning.
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), resource (IPS signature object), and identifier (by UUID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create/get/delete_ips_signature.
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 provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as when to update vs. create or delete an IPS signature. The description lacks context on prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.