Update an existing resource's contact details, skills, status, or billing rate by providing its ID.
Update an existing resource
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| skills | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| firstName | No | ||
| department | No | ||
| hourlyRate | 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 disclosing behavior, but it only says a resource is updated. It does not disclose whether this is a partial or full update, whether omitted fields are cleared, what authentication or permissions are required, or what happens if the resource does not exist.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It contains no substantive information beyond the tool name, so the single sentence does not earn its place.
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 nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no field descriptions, this generic one-liner is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to call the tool correctly or what to expect.
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%, yet the description lists none of the nine parameters or their meanings. An agent is left to infer the purpose of fields like skills, hourlyRate, status, and department purely from their names.
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 resource' essentially restates the tool name boond_resources_update and adds only the word 'existing'. It does not explain what a resource is, what fields are involved, or how this differs from the many sibling update tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus boond_resources_create, boond_resources_get, or other entity update tools. No prerequisites, workflows, or alternative-tool conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.