Update existing Odoo records by model and IDs with new field values, only when the connection policy permits the change.
Update records only when the connection policy allows it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| model | Yes | ||
| values | Yes | ||
| connection_id | Yes |
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 for a mutation tool. It hints at a connection-policy prerequisite, but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, how existing values are treated, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens when policy denies the update.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted wording, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Essential structural details about batching, targeting, and values are absent.
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?
The tool is a complex mutation accepting a connection, model, ID list, and nested values object, with no annotations or output schema. The description provides only a vague policy condition and leaves nearly everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly undocumented.
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 says nothing about connection_id, model, ids, or values. For a tool with four required parameters and a nested values object, the description fails to compensate at all.
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 clear verb-resource pair, "Update records," which distinguishes it from record_create and read siblings by operation. However, it does not specify scope such as records selected by IDs, model context, or connection context, so the purpose remains somewhat vague for a batch mutation tool.
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?
It gives only a conditional gate: update records "only when the connection policy allows it." It does not explain when to use record_update versus record_create, record_get, or record_search, nor does it describe prerequisites for the policy check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.