Update a guest group's mailing address for your Zola wedding guest list. Provide the guest group ID and address fields to correct or set their contact details.
Update a guest group's mailing address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| address1 | No | ||
| address2 | No | ||
| postal_code | No | ||
| country_code | No | Default: US | |
| guest_group_id | Yes | Guest group ID from list_guests | |
| state_province | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation, destructiveHint=false, tells the agent this is not a data-destroying operation, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description discloses nothing beyond the annotation — it does not say whether the update is partial (PATCH-like) or full-replacement, whether omitted address fields are cleared, or what response is returned.
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 7-word sentence conveys the core purpose with zero wasted words. It could carry slightly more substance (e.g., a note about partial updates) without becoming bloated, but as written it is efficient and immediately scannable.
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?
This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 29% schema coverage, yet the description supplies only a purpose one-liner. An agent evaluating this tool cannot tell whether optional fields accumulate or overwrite, whether updates are reversible, or what the call returns — significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.
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 only 29% — five of seven parameters (city, address1, address2, postal_code, state_province) have no schema description. The description's phrase 'mailing address' loosely groups these fields, but it adds no per-parameter meaning and does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to guess field formats or optionality semantics.
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 states a clear verb ('update') and resource ('a guest group's mailing address'), making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable. The name plus description distinguish it from siblings like add_guest, remove_guest, and update_event, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer the intended use solely from the tool's name, with no guidance about prerequisites such as the guest group having to exist or be fetched via list_guests (which is only noted in the schema).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.