Update existing farm records by ID, modifying details like health, movement, or genetic data for cattle and sheep.
Update an existing record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| farm_id | No | The ID of the farm (optional if a default is set). | |
| record_id | Yes | The UUID of the record to update. | |
| applied_at | No | When the event occurred (ISO date/time). | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond confirming mutation. It does not disclose update semantics such as whether omitted fields are left unchanged, whether updates are full or partial, or what happens on missing/invalid record_id.
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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices useful detail, which slightly reduces the effectiveness of its 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?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, this description is incomplete. It omits update behavior, response format, required fields beyond an implicit record_id, and any constraints such as enum values or date formats.
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 50%, and the tool description contributes no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention which fields are updatable, which are required, or how farm_id/applied_at/type relate to the update operation, so it fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing record.' It clearly signals modification of an existing entity rather than creation or deletion, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or list the record fields involved.
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 given about when to use this tool versus create_record, delete_record, get_record, or list_records. The phrase 'existing record' weakly implies it should not be used for creation, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.