update_pulseModify a specific pulse by ID to update its summary, start and end times, source, labels, references, or linked services and environments.
Update a specific pulse by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the pulse (fills `{id}` in /v1/pulses/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `pulse_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, destructive=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what happens to attributes omitted from `data`, whether the update is partial or full, or what the response contains.
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 filler, so nothing is wasted. However, it is undersized for a mutation tool with a deeply nested request body, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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 nested object parameter and multiple editable attributes (summary, labels, refs, service_ids, environment_ids, timestamps), the description omits update semantics, required permissions, and any hint about the returned resource. Even with an output schema present, the mutation behavior itself is left entirely undocumented.
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 nested `data.attributes` payload is complex. The description only echoes the `id` path parameter (already fully documented in the schema) and says nothing about the shape or semantics of `data` — e.g. which attributes are optional, whether null clears a field, or that `data.id` is ignored.
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?
"Update a specific pulse by id" gives a verb and a resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the name/title with "by id" appended. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as create_pulse, get_pulse, list_pulses, or a hypothetical patch_pulse, nor does it say what aspect of the pulse is 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, no prerequisites (e.g. the pulse must exist, required permissions), and no mention of whether this is a full replace or partial update. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.