update_severityUpdates a Rootly severity by ID, enabling changes to its name, color, position, level, description, notification emails, and Slack aliases or channels.
Update a specific severity by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the severity (fills `{id}` in /v1/severities/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `severity_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 as an idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds no behavioral context such as partial versus full update semantics, permission requirements, or what happens to omitted fields. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 data object and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits update semantics and request-shape guidance, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema and annotations.
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 only says 'by id' without explaining the nested data object or its attributes. The schema itself documents many fields, but the description adds no meaning beyond the top-level id parameter.
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 ('Update') and resource ('severity') and identifies the target by id. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_severity, create_severity, or list_severities, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_severity, create_severity, or list_severities. It only implies that it updates an existing severity by id, with no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.