Update an existing chat template in Kommo CRM. Note: only templates created by the current integration can be updated.
Atualiza um modelo de chat existente. IMPORTANTE: Limitação da API da Kommo: Você só pode atualizar modelos criados pela integração atual (ou seja, via API usando este mesmo token).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do modelo | |
| name | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| client_slug | Yes | Identificador do cliente (slug) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses a significant API limitation: only models created by the current integration/token can be updated. However, it does not explain update semantics, error behavior for unauthorized templates, or whether omitted fields are preserved or reset.
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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the critical API limitation. Every sentence adds necessary information, and there is 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description provides the most important constraint but omits update behavior and response/error details. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The description adds no parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is only 50% (id and client_slug are described; name and content are not), and the description does not compensate by explaining the optional fields or how they affect the update.
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 'Atualiza um modelo de chat existente' gives a specific verb (update) and resource (existing chat model), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_template and delete_template. It unambiguously states what the tool does.
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 clearly frames the tool as updating existing templates, implying it is not for creating or deleting. It also adds a concrete eligibility condition involving the current integration, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.