Update an existing task in NovaCRM by sending only the fields you want to change, such as status, priority, due date, or client details.
Atualiza uma tarefa existente (envie apenas os campos a alterar).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID da tarefa | |
| type | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| dueDate | No | ||
| dueTime | No | ||
| clientId | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| clientName | No | ||
| clientPhone | No | ||
| description | 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is an update and that only changed fields need sending, but does not say what happens with an unknown id, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed.
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 short sentence with the mutation verb front-loaded and the partial-update rule tucked in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.
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 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It leaves an agent unable to determine field formats, error behavior, or how this differs from the sibling task tools.
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 9% (just the id is documented), and 10 other parameters — including three enums and free-text date/time fields — are undocumented. The description adds only the general partial-update rule, with no format hints for dueDate/dueTime or meaning for clientId vs clientName/clientPhone.
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 and resource ("Atualiza uma tarefa existente"), so an agent immediately knows this is a mutation on an existing task. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like novacrm_complete_task, novacrm_delete_task, or novacrm_create_task, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
"(envie apenas os campos a alterar)" gives real invocation guidance: this is a partial/PATCH-style update, not a full replace. However, it offers no when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. whether to use this with status=completed or the dedicated novacrm_complete_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.