update_playbook_taskUpdate a specific playbook task by ID to edit its task text, position, or description in Rootly.
Update a specific playbook task by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the playbook task (fills `{id}` in /v1/playbook_tasks/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `playbook_task_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 description adds nothing on the safety or idempotency profile. It is silent on the operationally important question of whether this is a partial (PATCH) or full (PUT) update, and whether omitted attributes are cleared or preserved.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why the other dimensions are thin.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a nested-object mutation tool the description omits partial-update semantics, which attributes are mutable, and how the path `id` relates to the ignored `data.id`. That is a meaningful gap for an agent constructing the payload.
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 only 50%, and the description contributes nothing about the `data` JSON:API envelope, the required `type` discriminator, or the `attributes` object that carries the actual fields to change. The nested `attributes` descriptions in the schema are tautological ('The task of the task'), so the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 playbook task by id'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like update_playbook or update_workflow_task. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource noun alone is unambiguous.
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 versus update_playbook (the parent resource) or create_playbook, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.