Updates a VCF Automation action by ID using only the supplied properties, enabling targeted changes to action state without replacing the full resource.
Patch an action Updates the state of the action based only on the supplied properties PATCH /abx/api/resources/actions/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the action (path) | |
| body | Yes | Properties of the action to patch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond them: untouched properties are preserved. It omits permissions needed, whether the action's version state is affected, and why a PATCH body still has required 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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb and the key patch semantics. The final line repeats the endpoint path that is already present in the annotation title, which is minor waste.
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 nested 26-property body with no per-property descriptions and no output schema, the description is thin: it says nothing about what the enum actionType values imply, which fields are meaningful together, or what the response contains. Adequate to identify the tool, not adequate to call it confidently with a complex payload.
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 coverage is 100% (both `id` and `body` are documented), so the baseline is 3. 'Based only on the supplied properties' adds a little meaning about how body fields are interpreted, but the 26 nested body properties and the required actionType/entrypoint/name/orgId/runtime set are left entirely to the 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?
Names a specific verb (patch) and resource (an action) and clarifies partial-update semantics with 'Updates the state of the action based only on the supplied properties.' It does not name the closely related sibling abx_put_actions_by_id, so an agent must infer the PATCH-vs-PUT split from the HTTP verb alone.
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 phrase 'based only on the supplied properties' implicitly signals partial updates and therefore contrasts with a full-replace PUT, but the description never states when to prefer this over abx_put_actions_by_id, abx_create_action_version, or abx_restore_action_version, and gives no preconditions such as whether the action must be unreleased.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.