Update an existing testimonial by ID, changing its content, author details, or status. Requires write permission to apply modifications.
Update an existing testimonial by ID. Requires write permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Testimonial ID | |
| name | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| image_url | No | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| is_featured | No | ||
| platform_name | No | ||
| testimonial_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It admits the operation mutates and requires write permission, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, error behavior for invalid IDs, or the return format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.
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, front-loaded with the operation, and includes the permission requirement in a second sentence. Every word contributes, but it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail; still, the structure itself is clean and 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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is drastically incomplete. It omits update semantics (partial vs. full), field meanings, error handling, response shape, and any guidance on behavioral nuances. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.
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 10% (only 'id' has a description), and the description itself adds no meaning to the remaining 9 parameters. It merely mentions 'by ID', which is already required in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation on fields like image_url, platform_name, and testimonial_date.
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 clearly states the verb 'update', the resource 'testimonial', and that it operates on an existing record by ID. It distinguishes from create/delete/list siblings by focusing on modification of an existing item, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies this is for modifying an existing testimonial when write permission is present, but it does not explicitly contrast with create_testimonial or delete_testimonial, nor does it mention when not to use this tool. The 'requires write permission' note gives some context but no clear exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.