Updates an existing NovaCRM client record by sending only the fields to change, leaving other client data unchanged.
Atualiza dados de um cliente existente (envie apenas os campos a alterar).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do cliente | |
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| No | |||
| notes | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| clientType | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose partial-update semantics, but says nothing about permission requirements, irreversibility of the mutation, behavior for a nonexistent id, whether fields can be cleared, or how nested objects like 'address' merge.
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; the mutation caveat is bundled into the parenthetical where it belongs. It is efficient, though the compression leaves little room to expand any of the missing detail.
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 a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested object parameter, and 11% schema coverage, this one-liner is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine field semantics or post-call expectations from what is given.
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 only 11% – just 'id' is documented – so the description must compensate and does not. It adds the meaningful partial-update rule, but the remaining eight parameters (tags, status, clientType, the nested address object) are left entirely without semantics or allowed values.
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 names a specific verb ('Atualiza') and resource ('dados de um cliente existente'), which also implicitly distinguishes it from novacrm_create_client. However, it never names the sibling read/creation tools or clarifies scope beyond 'existing client', so an agent must still infer the boundary with novacrm_get_client.
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 parenthetical '(envie apenas os campos a alterar)' gives a genuine calling convention for a partial update, which is useful. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over create_client or get_client, no prerequisites (must the client already exist / what happens otherwise), and no notes on which of the nine fields can actually be updated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.