Modify an existing action's fields—status, due date, priority, assigned user, or description—to keep records current in BoondManager.
Update an existing action
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Action ID | |
| name | No | Action name | |
| status | No | Action status | |
| dueDate | No | Due date (ISO 8601 format) | |
| priority | No | Action priority | |
| assignedTo | No | User ID to assign action to | |
| description | No | Action description |
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. It only says 'update,' which implies mutation but reveals nothing about partial vs. full updates, permission requirements, idempotency, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.
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 only four words and is front-loaded, but it is too terse for a tool of this complexity. It omits essential information such as whether fields are optional, how the update behaves, and what response to expect. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no usage context, no behavioral details, and no information about return values. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema and naming conventions, leaving too much room for incorrect invocation.
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%, so all seven parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, which is acceptable given the high coverage, landing at the baseline score of 3.
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 ('update') and a clear resource ('action'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, search, and delete. It is concise and unambiguous, though it adds no extra scope or nuance beyond the basic operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of requiring an existing ID, differences from create/delete, or any prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is for modifying an existing action, which is implicit but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.