update_heartbeatModify a specific heartbeat by ID to change its name, enabled status, interval, alert settings, notification target, or owning teams.
Update a specific heartbeat by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the heartbeat (fills `{id}` in /v1/heartbeats/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `heartbeat_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 non-readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it updates by id: it does not say whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to omitted attributes, or whether the operation returns the updated resource.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a concise statement, though its brevity contributes to the missing detail elsewhere.
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 mutation tool with a nested input schema, an output schema, and multiple sibling heartbeat tools, the description is too thin. It does not explain update semantics, required payload structure, or how this fits alongside get_heartbeat and create_heartbeat.
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?
The input schema has only 50% description coverage and a nested 'data' object, so the description should compensate by clarifying parameter meaning. Instead it only says the heartbeat is identified 'by id' and gives no detail on the 'data' envelope, required 'type'/'attributes' structure, or how omitted fields behave.
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 ('heartbeat') scoped 'by id', so an agent can tell it is a mutation operation targeting one heartbeat. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_heartbeat or create_heartbeat, but the verb does most of the work.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_heartbeat, list_heartbeats, or create_heartbeat. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the heartbeat must already exist or which fields are updatable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.