gambot_update_quoteUpdate specific fields of an existing quote by providing its ID and the fields to change, enabling targeted corrections without overwriting other data.
Update quote fields (partial).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| quoteId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the update is partial (likely meaning only provided fields are changed), but omits side effects, error behavior, permissions, or return format. This is a minimal disclosure that barely exceeds what the name implies.
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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It fails to provide necessary context about parameters or usage, so it is not well-structured for guiding an agent.
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 (nested object, no annotations, no output schema), this description is severely incomplete. It lacks any information about allowed field names, data types, error conditions, or return values, making it insufficient for 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what quoteId represents or the structure/expected keys of the 'fields' object. The agent cannot infer how to construct valid inputs from this description.
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 clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (quote fields), and adds 'partial' to indicate a scoped update. This distinguishes it from create_quote and other update tools, though it doesn't enumerate specific updatable fields.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_quote or get_quote. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.