Update an existing pricing card by its ID, replacing its name, pricing model, and metering items to keep catalog pricing current.
Update the pricing card Updates the pricing card with the specified Id PUT /price/api/private/pricing-cards/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | pricing card Id (path) | |
| body | Yes | The pricing card to be created |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the operation; notably it omits the important PUT full-replacement semantics (whether omitted fields are cleared/overwritten) that an agent would need when mutating a complex nested resource.
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 short but highly repetitive, restating the same operation three times ('Update the pricing card', 'Updates the pricing card...', 'PUT /price/...') without front-loading any real value. It is not bloated, but the redundancy earns no efficiency credit.
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 mutation tool with a deeply nested body (many metering item arrays, charge models, pricing fields) and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should clarify full-vs-partial update behavior and required vs optional fields, but instead provides only a bare restatement of the endpoint.
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 documents the id path parameter and the full body structure. The description only references 'the specified Id' and does not enrich the complex nested body fields, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update the pricing card with the specified Id'), which is clearer than the tool name catalog_update_policy suggests. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from catalog siblings like catalog_get_policy, catalog_create_policy, or catalog_delete_policy, and the name/resource mismatch adds confusion rather than resolving it.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The description only restates that it updates a pricing card by Id, leaving all usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.