Update a scoring rule's name, points, condition, or active status to adjust how leads are scored.
Update a scoring rule's name, points, condition, or active status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Scoring rule UUID | |
| name | No | Updated name | |
| points | No | Updated points | |
| isActive | No | Enable or disable | |
| condition | No | Updated condition |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this is a partial update or full replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether changing points requires calling conduyt_recalculate_scores, or what permissions are needed — all important for a mutation tool with zero structured safety metadata.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; it efficiently communicates the resource and mutable fields. It is not padded or buried, though it is too terse to carry behavioral guidance.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits update semantics (partial vs. full), permission requirements, and downstream effects on scoring. The rich schema helps with parameters, but the behavioral envelope an agent needs is absent.
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 100%, so every parameter (id, name, points, isActive, condition) is already documented in the schema. The description restates those field names but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making this baseline territory.
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 clear verb (Update) and resource (scoring rule) and enumerates the mutable fields, which maps directly to the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like conduyt_create_scoring_rule, conduyt_delete_scoring_rule, or conduyt_recalculate_scores, but the resource is unambiguous.
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/delete/recalculate scoring rules, and no prerequisites such as the owning rule id or permissions required. The agent must infer the invocation context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.