agents_updateUpdate an existing Omnara agent's configuration by submitting YAML or JSON source, with optional version checking to prevent conflicting edits.
Update agent config
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | Agent config source as YAML or JSON text, or, with source_format json, as a JSON object. | |
| agentID | Yes | ||
| projectID | Yes | ||
| source_format | Yes | ||
| expected_current_config_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing about what gets replaced, whether the provided source fully overwrites the existing config, or what happens on conflict — and no contradiction exists.
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?
It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness; four words that duplicate the title earn nothing and leave the agent with no actionable framing.
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 destructive config-overwrite tool with a deeply nested 6-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing about the source/source_format duality, the optimistic-concurrency guard, or the effect of the update is conveyed.
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?
With 6 parameters and only 17% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters like source, source_format, and expected_current_config_id — and it explains none of them. The single terse clause offers no semantic value over the schema.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 (e.g. required IDs, permissions), and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling config/agent tools. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.