Update an existing absence record in BoondManager by changing its dates, type, reason, status, or associated resource. Keeps absence data accurate and current through the BoondManager API.
Update an existing absence
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| resourceId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely says 'Update an existing absence.' It does not state whether the update is partial, whether it modifies all fields or only provided ones, what validations apply, who can perform it, or what response to expect.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, which is structurally clean, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of essential information.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. An agent has no idea what fields are updatable, what the required id means contextually, or what happens after the call succeeds.
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 0%, and the description adds zero meaning to any of the 7 parameters. It neither maps simple parameters to intent nor clarifies nuanced fields like status or type beyond what the schema enums already show.
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 ('an existing absence'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create, search, or get operations for absences. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not enumerate what aspects of the absence can be updated.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like boond_absences_create, boond_absences_search, or boond_absences_get. It implies the absence must already exist but gives no prerequisites, workflow context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.