Update a signoff attachment's standing to active or inactive using its attachment ID and the new standing value.
Update a signoff attachment's standing.
Only the standing field ("active"/"inactive") is updatable.
Args: attachment_id: The attachment's ID (required) standing: New standing — "active" or "inactive" (required)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| standing | Yes | ||
| attachment_id | Yes |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only standing is updatable and gives its allowed values, but says nothing about authentication requirements, side effects on the signoff, or whether the change is reversible.
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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and constraint, then uses a clean Args list. No redundant or empty sentences.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers both parameters and the key constraint. It omits prerequisites and return behavior, but given the tool's low complexity, the definition is largely sufficient.
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%, so the description must document parameters, and it does: it maps both required parameters and provides the enum values ('active'/'inactive') missing from the schema. It doesn't explain how to obtain the attachment_id, but the essential semantics are covered.
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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Update a signoff attachment's standing') and immediately constrains scope to the single updatable field. It distinguishes this from sibling signoff tools like accelo_update_signoff by targeting attachments specifically.
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 explicit when/when-not guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this is for changing an attachment's standing, but there is no mention of prerequisites or when to prefer this over updating the signoff itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.