Update an action chain's name, description, or ordered stages by sending only the fields you want to change. Requires write permission.
Update an action chain via PATCH; only provided fields are sent (requires write permission)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New chain name | |
| stages | No | Replacement ordered stage list | |
| chain_id | Yes | Action chain ID | |
| description | No | New description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the PATCH behavior (only provided fields are sent) and the write permission requirement, which are valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, partial updates, or whether the full updated chain is returned.
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 description is one concise sentence that front-loads the key semantic (PATCH partial update) and includes the permission requirement. No wasted words; every part 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 an update tool with fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context (PATCH, permission). It doesn't mention return value, but there's no output schema and for a PATCH update the agent can reasonably infer the updated object or success status. Slightly more detail on response shape would make it complete.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description's PATCH note adds meaning to how parameters are applied (only provided fields are sent), which helps the agent understand partial updates. This meets the baseline but doesn't go beyond what the schema and the PATCH detail imply.
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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'action chain', and specifies that it uses PATCH semantics. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_action_chain and delete_action_chain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_escalation_chain or other update_* tools, though the resource 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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when updating an existing action chain with partial fields. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., create_action_chain for new chains, delete_action_chain for removal). The write permission requirement is a useful usage cue but not about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.