update_causeUpdate the details of a specific cause by its ID, allowing you to modify the name, description, and associated catalog properties.
Update a specific cause by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the caus (fills `{id}` in /v1/causes/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `caus_id` argument. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about update semantics, such as whether omitted attributes are preserved, what happens to deprecated fields like slug, or whether permissions are required.
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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is front-loaded with the core action but lacks any supporting context.
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?
This is a mutation tool with nested objects, two required parameters, and no description of the data payload shape or update semantics. Although an output schema and annotations exist, the description still leaves too much unexplained for an agent to confidently construct a correct update request.
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 50%, and the description only repeats that an id is required while saying nothing about the data object or its attributes. The schema already documents id extensively, so the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics and does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb ("Update") and resource ("cause") plus the identifier mechanism ("by id"). This is clear enough to distinguish it from get_cause, create_cause, and list_causes, though it provides no detail about what parts of a cause can be updated.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cause, create_cause, or list_causes. The only implied context is that an existing cause is being modified, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing cues are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.