update_email_listUpdate an existing email list's name by supplying its list ID and the new name. Keep your SendGrid contact lists accurate and organized.
Update the properties of an existing email list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New name for the email list | |
| list_id | Yes | ID of the email list to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral detail like return behavior or side effects, but it also does not contradict the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the operation and target resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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?
The tool is simple: two required parameters, full schema coverage, no nested objects, and safety-related annotations are present. The description is sufficient for basic invocation, though it could be slightly more specific about the 'name' property and sibling tool selection.
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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters ('list_id' and 'name'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Update,' and clearly targets the 'email list' resource. The word 'existing' differentiates it from create/delete siblings, though 'properties' is vague given the schema only contains a 'name' parameter.
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 implies use when an existing email list needs modification, which distinguishes it from create/delete/list tools by inference. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.