update_recordsModify up to 10 records in an Airtable table by providing the base ID, table ID or name, and each record ID with the fields to change.
Update up to 10 records in a table
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| baseId | Yes | The ID of the base | |
| records | Yes | Array of records to update (max 10) | |
| tableId | Yes | The ID or name of the table |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| records | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the update merges or replaces existing field values, whether destructiveHint means overwriting unmentioned fields, or what happens on partial failure across the 10-record batch.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and the scope constraint front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than genuine economy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive batch-mutation tool with three required parameters and many overlapping siblings, the description omits update semantics, failure behavior, and routing guidance. It is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.
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 baseId, tableId, and records are already documented, including the max-10 constraint the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, ID-format, or field-mapping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (update), resource (records), and a scope constraint (up to 10, in a table). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like update_field, create_record, or delete_records, which exist in the same family.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_record for new rows or delete_records for removal. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.