update_sub_statusUpdate a specific sub-status by UUID or slug to change its name, position, or description for Rootly incident metadata.
Update a specific Sub-Status by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the sub status (fills `{id}` in /v1/sub_statuses/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `sub_status_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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb — it does not say which fields are mutable, that omitted fields are left untouched, or that the nested `id` and `slug` values are ignored.
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 zero waste, which is structurally clean. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity — the terseness leaves the agent without needed routing and parameter context.
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 request body, an output schema, and a near-identical sibling (update_incident_sub_status), the description is too thin. It omits the mutable field set and the sibling distinction, which are the two things an agent most needs before invoking it.
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 coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate, but it only echoes the `id` path parameter ('by id') and says nothing about the `data` object or its `attributes` (name, position, description). The rich schema notes about ignored `data.id` and deprecated `slug` are never surfaced in the description.
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 (Sub-Status) with an id scope, so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling update_incident_sub_status, leaving the agent to infer which mutation applies in a given context.
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 update_incident_sub_status, create_sub_status, or get_sub_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.