Update an onboarding blueprint in the current organization by ID, including its name, plan link, template link, deployment link, and auto-generation setting.
Update the selected onboarding blueprint Update the selected onboarding blueprint in the current organization PATCH /relocation/onboarding/blueprint/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the blueprint (path) | |
| body | Yes | Request body |
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=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the org scope; it does not explain PATCH semantics (partial vs. replace), whether omitted body fields are preserved, or what happens to the auto-generated Template when autogenerate changes — meaningful gaps for a non-idempotent mutation. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 same sentence is repeated nearly verbatim in the first two lines, and the third line is a bare HTTP path that the annotation title already contains. The content could be one clause; instead a third of it is duplication.
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?
The rich, fully documented nested schema and existing annotations cover most of what an agent needs, and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a non-idempotent PATCH with many sibling update tools, the absence of any guidance on selection and patch semantics leaves a real 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%, including nested body fields (name, planLink, autogenerate, templateLink, deploymentLink), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id path parameter or the required planLink in the body, 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?
The description states the verb and resource ("Update ... onboarding blueprint") and adds a scope ("in the current organization"), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, including the raw endpoint path. It does nothing to distinguish this from closely related siblings such as onboarding_patch_plan_by_id, onboarding_patch_deployment_by_id, onboarding_patch_resource_by_id, or blueprint_update_blueprint.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative to pick. An agent given a dozen near-identical onboarding_patch_* and blueprint_update_* siblings is left to infer selection criteria entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.