Modify a booked wedding vendor's name, contact details, event date, or price using the vendor UUID and updated field values.
Update a booked vendor's details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| uuid | Yes | Vendor UUID from list_vendors | |
| No | |||
| phone | No | Vendor phone | |
| event_date | No | ISO 8601 date (YYYY-MM-DD) or timestamp; an unparseable value is rejected | |
| price_cents | No | ||
| state_province | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Input schema / properties / event_date / descriptionPrevious value: -"ISO 8601 date"New value: +"ISO 8601 date (YYYY-MM-DD) or timestamp; an unparseable value is rejected"Input schema / properties / phoneAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Vendor phone",
+ "type": "string"
+}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?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not say whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, whether the caller must own the vendor, or what a partial update does to existing details.
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 short sentence with no waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined concision. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing beyond the bare action is stated.
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 destructive, idempotent mutation tool with 8 parameters, one required, no output schema and 38% schema coverage, the description leaves critical gaps. It says nothing about update semantics, field handling, or side effects that the annotations only flag as 'destructive'.
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 38% across 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Five fields (city, name, email, price_cents, state_province) are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Update) and resource (a booked vendor's details), enough to distinguish it from list_vendors, search_vendors, add_vendor and remove_vendor. It stops short of naming which sibling to use when or what 'booked' means relative to non-booked vendors, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (add_vendor, remove_vendor, list_vendors) or when updating is appropriate versus re-adding. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.