Update Virtual Agent topic properties by specifying its sys_id and fields such as name, description, or active status. Modify existing topics directly to keep them current.
Update a Virtual Agent topic properties. [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Fields to update (name, description, active, etc.) | |
| sys_id | Yes | Topic sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds only a redundant '[Write]' tag, which duplicates the annotation readOnlyHint=false. No additional behavioral context is provided, such as partial update semantics, error behavior, or authorization needs. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description adds no value beyond them.
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 extremely concise, a single sentence plus a short tag. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word 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 simple update tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify return value or behavior when sys_id does not exist, which could be useful. Given the simple nature, this is acceptable.
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% for both parameters (sys_id and fields). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 Virtual Agent topic properties with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Virtual Agent topic properties'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_va_topic and get_va_topic.
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?
Usage context is implied by the 'update' verb, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_va_topic for new topics). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.