Update existing purchase records by modifying totals, status, company, or dates. Resolve outdated purchase data with precise edits.
Update an existing purchase
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| total | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| companyId | No | ||
| orderedAt | No | ||
| receivedAt | 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the verb 'update' found in the tool name. It does not mention that the operation mutates an existing record, whether it is a partial or full update, what happens on success or failure, or any side effects.
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, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence adds no informative value beyond the tool name, so it fails to earn its place as a useful guide.
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 6 parameters, 1 required field, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is severely inadequate. An agent would lack critical information about which parameters are required, what values are valid, or what the tool returns, making it impossible to craft a confident update request.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the purpose and usage of the parameters. It does not mention 'id', 'total', 'status', 'companyId', or any date fields, leaving an agent with the raw schema names as the only semantic hint.
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 'Update an existing purchase' states a clear verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name and provides no detail about the scope of the update or how it differs from other purchase-related tools. It is not vague enough to be a tautology, but it lacks the specificity that would earn a higher score.
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 alternatives such as boond_purchases_create for new purchases or boond_purchases_get/search for retrieval. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions, so an agent receives no clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.