Update a product variation's name or prices in Pipedrive by supplying the product ID and variation ID with the new values.
Update a product variation's name or prices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | The name of the product variation | |
| prices | No | Variation prices | |
| product_id | Yes | The product ID the variation belongs to | |
| product_variation_id | Yes | The product variation ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'update' but doesn't disclose whether omission of 'name' or 'prices' leaves them unchanged, whether prices replace or append, permission/auth requirements, or idempotency. 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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste and the verb+resource front-loaded. It is very short, which is a strength, though it also reflects the missing behavioral content rather than being deliberate tightness.
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?
Mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and unpatch semantics for name/prices means the agent cannot tell what happens to a price list on update. The description is too thin to support correct invocation given the tool's 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enumerates the two mutable fields ('name or prices'), which is consistent with the schema, but adds no format or behavioral detail beyond it (e.g., that prices is an array of currency/price/cost objects).
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 (product variation) with the updatable fields named (name, prices). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pipedrive_product_variations_create/delete/list by the 'update' verb, though it doesn't explicitly reference them.
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 distinction from siblings such as product_variations_create (new variation) vs this update, and no prerequisites for the required IDs. The agent gets the core action but must infer context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.