update_override_shiftUpdate a specific override shift by ID to assign a different user, using the shift ID and new user ID.
Update a specific override shift by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the override shift (fills `{id}` in /v1/override_shifts/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `override_shift_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 this is a non-destructive, idempotent write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds nothing beyond 'by id' – it does not say that the only mutable field is the assigned user, whether the change is immediate, or whether it affects existing on-call coverage.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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?
Even though an output schema and annotations exist, the description omits the central semantics of this mutation: what is being updated (the override shift's user assignment) and any consequence for coverage. For a nested-payload write tool, that is a material gap.
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 contributes no parameter meaning at all. It never mentions that the payload's `data.attributes.user_id` is the field actually being changed (i.e., reassigning the override shift to another user), which is the one fact an agent needs and which the nested schema only hints at with 'Override shift user'.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific override shift'), which is more than a tautology. However, it offers no differentiation from the siblings create_override_shift, get_override_shift, or list_override_shifts beyond the tool name itself, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 get_override_shift or create_override_shift, no prerequisites, and no mention of when an update is appropriate. Usage must be entirely inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.