Update an existing SLA/OLA definition by providing its sys_id and the field values to change. Requires the instance's WRITE_ENABLED setting to be true.
Update an SLA/OLA definition (contract_sla). Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Field values to update | |
| sys_id | Yes | sys_id of the definition |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED permission requirement, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like partial updates, validation, or error conditions. With annotations covering the core traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a critical prerequisite. There is zero fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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 update tool with only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It does not mention output (none exists) or error handling, but these are not essential given the schema and annotations. The nested fields object is documented in the schema, so no further explanation is needed. Overall, it meets the minimum viable completeness.
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 100%, and both parameters (sys_id, fields) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 is correct since the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool updates an SLA/OLA definition (contract_sla), distinguishing it from create_sla_definition and list_sla_definitions. The verb 'Update' and the resource 'SLA/OLA definition' are specific and unambiguous.
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 description gives a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_sla_definition or list_sla_definitions. The usage is implied by the name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.