Update an existing company in Accelo CRM by ID, modifying name, website, phone, fax, or comments.
Update an existing company.
Args: id: Company ID (required) name: New company name website: New website URL phone: New phone number fax: New fax number comments: New comments fields: Additional fields to return in response
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fax | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| website | No | ||
| comments | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never explains partial-update semantics (every optional field defaults to null, but it does not say whether null means 'leave unchanged' or 'clear the value'), required permissions, or what the mutation returns. The only behavioral hint is that 'fields' controls the response payload.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter list with no filler. It reads as an auto-generated docstring but every line maps to a real parameter, so it earns its place.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits partial-update semantics, permission requirements, and the shape of the response beyond the vague 'fields' hint. An agent would have to guess at the null-handling behavior before calling it.
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 0% and there are 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does list all seven parameters and clarifies the ambiguous 'fields' argument as 'Additional fields to return in response', plus flags id as required — but the rest ('New company name', 'New phone number') are largely tautological restatements of the schema titles.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing company'), which clearly distinguishes it from accelo_create_company, accelo_get_company and accelo_delete_company by operation. It stops short of naming or contrasting those siblings explicitly, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus accelo_create_company or accelo_get_company, no preconditions, and no note about permissions or how the update interacts with other company operations. The only context is the bare verb 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.