Update an existing education record by its ID. Modify details such as degree, institution, dates, descriptions, and related skills with write access.
Update an existing education entry by ID. Requires write permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Education ID | |
| grade | No | ||
| degree | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| body_html | No | ||
| skill_ids | No | ||
| is_current | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| institution | No | ||
| project_ids | No | ||
| field_of_study | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the write-permission requirement, which is useful, but omits other key behaviors such as failure on missing ID, partial-update semantics, return value, or whether all fields are optional once ID is supplied. This is a clear gap but not a contradiction.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff: first states the primary action and target, second discloses a permission prerequisite. Every word contributes; the essential purpose is front-loaded.
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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information on parameter semantics, behavior on partial updates, error handling, or return values, so the agent cannot confidently construct or interpret a correct call.
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 only 8% (just 'id'), yet the description adds no meaning for the other 11 parameters. An agent cannot infer what 'grade', 'body_html', 'skill_ids', or 'project_ids' represent or how they are updated from either the schema or the description.
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 specific verb ('Update'), resource ('education entry'), and targeting mechanism ('by ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/get siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the scope is obvious from the phrasing.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or conditions beyond 'Requires write permission.' The name implies it, but the description does not state when to prefer it over create_education or mention related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.