Update candidate details in BoondManager by specifying the candidate ID and any fields to modify, such as contact information or address.
Update an existing candidate
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| city | No | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| firstName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. Saying 'Update an existing candidate' only reveals that this is a mutation operation; it does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether the update is partial or full, what happens if the candidate does not exist, or what permissions are required.
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 very short and contains no filler, so it is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified for an 8-parameter mutation tool; the sentence is concise but not appropriately sized to the complexity of the operation.
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 an update operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain expected return values, error cases, partial-update semantics, or how the optional fields interact, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool reliably.
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 no meaning to any of the 8 parameters. The parameter names and types give some signal (id, firstName, email, etc.), but the description itself does not clarify which fields are updatable in practice, which are optional when updating, or how the id parameter relates to the rest of the payload.
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 names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing candidate'), and the word 'existing' signals that this tool is for modifying an already-created candidate rather than creating or retrieving one. It is clear enough to distinguish the basic intent from sibling tools such as create/get, although it does not elaborate on what updates are possible.
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 about when to use this tool instead of boond_candidates_create, boond_candidates_get, or the other update tools. The phrase 'existing candidate' implies a non-creation use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.