update_departmentUpdates a department in the ALSO Cloud Marketplace using an account ID and the fields to change, enabling administrators to manage department records.
WRITE: UpdateDepartment. Pass department object with accountId and fields to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| department | Yes | Department update payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the "WRITE:" prefix adds nothing new. What the description does add is that accountId is required inside the payload — a requirement absent from the opaque nested-object schema. It says nothing about partial-update semantics on omitted fields, error behavior, or permissions.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation type, with no filler. The "UpdateDepartment" token mildly restates the tool name and the title, but the payload hint earns its place.
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 single-parameter nested-object mutation with no output schema and no annotations covering semantics, the description gives just enough to construct a payload but omits what a successful response contains and how unspecified fields are treated. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is nominally 100%, but the nested department object is declared with empty additionalProperties, so the schema alone tells an agent nothing about its contents. The description compensates meaningfully by naming accountId as a payload member and framing the rest as "fields to change".
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 specific verb and resource ("WRITE: UpdateDepartment") and adds that the payload carries accountId plus "fields to change", which signals partial-update semantics. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as create_department or get_department, so it falls short of a 5.
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 versus create_department, get_department, or get_departments. The only invocation hint is the imperative "Pass department object with accountId", which describes how to call it, not when.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.