Update an application by its unique identifier, changing only the name or description fields you need. Supports partial updates in TestMonitor.
Update an application. Update an application using its unique identifier.
This endpoint supports partial updates, so you only need to include the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false). The description adds that partial updates are supported, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens to omitted fields.
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 short but front-loads a redundant repeat of the purpose ('Update an application. Update an application using its unique identifier.'). The second sentence about partial updates is the only value-add; the rest could be tightened.
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 three parameters including a required path ID, a required body with nested objects, and a query parameter with enums, the description is far too thin. It omits required parameter details, body structure, and the query parameter, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.
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 0% per context. The description only vaguely refers to 'unique identifier' and 'fields you want to change' without naming or explaining any of the three parameters, including the path ID, body fields, or the 'with' query parameter.
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 specific verb (update) and resource (application) and mentions using its unique identifier. However, it redundantly repeats the same action and does not differentiate from sibling tools like post_application or put_issue.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post_application or get_application. It also lacks prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.