Modify an existing content variant in Agentic CMS by changing its status, hashtags, body text, or platform-specific settings for agent-driven content revisions.
Update an existing variant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Variant ID | |
| status | No | Updated status | |
| hashtags | No | Updated hashtags | |
| body_text | No | Updated body text | |
| platform_settings | No | Updated platform-specific settings |
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 carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It confirms a write ('Update') but says nothing about whether omitted fields are cleared, permission requirements, reversibility, or how nested platform_settings are merged.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words and the operation front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, five parameters, and a nested object, the description is far too thin. It never explains what the update affects or returns, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.
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 100%, so all five parameters (id, status, hashtags, body_text, platform_settings) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which lands at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States a clear verb and resource ('Update an existing variant'), so an agent knows the operation targets a variant record. However, it gives no indication of what is updatable or how it differs in scope from create_variant/list_variants, leaving the purpose at the minimum viable level.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_variant or the broader update_content. The agent must infer everything about appropriate invocation from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.