update_incident_action_itemUpdate an incident action item by ID, including status, priority, summary, due date, assignee, and custom fields.
Update a specific incident action item by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the action item (fills `{id}` in /v1/action_items/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `action_item_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 readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — notably it never states the partial-update contract (which attributes are omitted vs. explicitly nulled), whether omitted fields are preserved, or what failure looks like for an invalid id.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity costs information an agent needs for a mutation with a nested payload.
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 write tool with a deeply nested JSON:API body and no output-schema explanation needed, the description omits update semantics, required envelope structure, and the org-level custom field caveat. An agent must read the entire schema to call this correctly.
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 reported at 50%, and the description contributes zero parameter detail beyond 'by id', which merely echoes the schema. The heavy lifting (JSON:API envelope, ignored inner id, form_field_selections gating) is all in the schema, so the description does not compensate for the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific incident action item by id'), which clearly separates it from create_incident_action_item and the list/get siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings such as list_incident_action_items or update_incident_custom_field_selection.
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 siblings, no mention of prerequisites (existing id, org custom-field enablement), and no note about which fields must accompany an update. Usage is only inferable from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.