Update a smart list's name, description, type, or filters to keep contact segments current. Modify list properties by UUID to reflect changing criteria.
Update a smart list's name, description, type, or filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Smart list UUID | |
| name | No | Updated name | |
| type | No | Updated type | |
| filters | No | Updated filter rules | |
| isActive | No | Enable or disable | |
| description | No | Updated description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether this is a partial or full replace, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether filters replace or merge, or what happens to manually added contacts when type flips between 'static' and 'dynamic'. That last risk is significant for a mutation tool and is entirely undisclosed.
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 well-scoped sentence with the target resource front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it earns credit for economy but not full marks.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not cover partial-update semantics, type-transition side effects, or confirmation of what is returned. Those gaps matter for an agent deciding how to safely call it.
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 including id, type enum, and isActive is already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond re-listing four of the six fields and omits isActive entirely, so it does not enrich 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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (a smart list) plus the updatable fields, so the agent can distinguish it from create/get/list smart list siblings. However, the field list is incomplete relative to the schema (isActive is omitted), so the purpose statement slightly under-describes the tool.
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 gives no indication of when to use this versus conduyt_create_smart_list, conduyt_get_smart_list, or conduyt_list_smart_lists, and no prerequisites (e.g. ownership or permission requirements) are mentioned. It only implies usage by being named 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.