Update existing forms in Cmssy CMS by changing name, slug, status, fields, or settings. Apply partial changes after user confirmation.
Update an existing form's name, slug, status, fields or settings (partial). Only call after the user describes the change and confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| fields | No | Replacement fields array | |
| status | No | ||
| idOrSlug | No | The form's id or slug to update | |
| settings | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'partial' to imply non-destructive behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, response format, or consequences of changing status (e.g., publishing an archived form). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first states exactly what the tool does and includes 'partial' to signal PATCH semantics. The second gives a clear precondition for invocation. No redundant phrasing.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, deeply nested objects, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the structure of fields or settings, how to reference the form via idOrSlug, or what the response will look like. An agent would need to infer a lot, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
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 low (29%), with only two parameters described. The description lists the updatable fields (name, slug, status, fields, settings) but does not explain the critical idOrSlug parameter or how partial updates work with nested objects like fields and settings. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's sparse documentation.
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 the verb (update), the resource (existing form), and the specific updatable attributes (name, slug, status, fields, settings). It also notes the update is partial, which distinguishes it from a full replacement, and the sibling tools create_form and delete_form make the distinction clear.
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?
It provides an explicit precondition: 'Only call after the user describes the change and confirms.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the presence of create_form and delete_form in siblings implies when not to use it. The guideline is clear but doesn't contrast with those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.