forms_access_updateSet the access level (owner, restricted, common, or public) for one form action (change or submit) and return all permissions.
Set the access level of one action (change or submit); returns every permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The action and its new access level. | |
| survey_id | Yes | Form id (24-char hex), from ``surveys_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — 'returns every permission' — signaling the response is the full permission set rather than just the modified action, but says nothing about auth requirements or side effects on other actions.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the operation and appends only the return-value note. No filler.
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 2-parameter mutation with fully documented nested schema, the description covers purpose and return semantics adequately. It could say more about how this relates to grant/revoke, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.
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%, so both survey_id and the nested body fields are already documented. The description restates the action enum values already present in the schema and adds no format or syntax detail beyond it.
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+resource: setting the access level of one Forms survey action (change or submit). Clear and distinct from read-oriented siblings like forms_access_list, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with forms_access_grant/revoke.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related forms_access_grant, forms_access_revoke, or forms_access_list siblings. The agent must infer that this modifies an existing permission rather than granting a new one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.