Modifies aircraft records by ID, letting users change model, color, call sign, decal number, operator, owner, and tail number in FlashPass eAPIS data.
Change aircraft fields (Model, Color, CallSign, DecalNumber, Operator, Owner).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permission requirements, no statement of whether the update is partial/merge or full replacement of the fields object, no irreversibility warning, no error behavior. The only behavioral hint is the word 'Change', which implies mutation but nothing more.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right shape for this tool. The parenthetical field list is largely redundant with the schema property names, so it is efficient but not maximally informative.
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 a nested object parameter, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine merge-vs-replace semantics, required permissions, or what a successful response contains before invoking 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 the nested 'fields' object has seven properties whose descriptions are tautologies ('Color', 'Tail', 'Call sign'). The description merely restates six of those property names and even omits TailNumber, which the schema accepts, and it never explains what 'id' identifies or whether unspecified fields are preserved.
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 ('Change') and resource ('aircraft fields') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can tell this apart from update_person or update_manifest by resource alone. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation or statement of scope (single aircraft vs batch).
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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never says whether this is the tool for correcting a tail number versus creating an aircraft (create_person-style siblings exist for other resources, but no create_aircraft appears here), leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.