Modify an existing status in your Arca workspace by providing its ID and updating fields like name, color, category, or position. Requires owner or admin access.
Update an existing status (requires owner or admin role)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icon | No | Icon name | |
| name | No | Status name | |
| color | No | Color value | |
| category | No | Status category | |
| position | No | Display position (integer) | |
| status_id | Yes | The status ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the owner/admin role requirement and that the status must already exist. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects may occur.
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 sentence with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the important role requirement is appended parenthetically without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a CRUD update tool with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action, targets existing statuses, and gives the permission prerequisite. However, it lacks guidance about partial updates, expected result, or behavioral side effects, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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 the schema already explains all six parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for a fully documented schema.
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 and resource — "Update an existing status" — and the word "existing" helps distinguish it from create_status. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the action is clear enough to identify the tool's role.
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 only for statuses that already exist and states the role requirement, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_status or delete_status, nor does it mention any alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.