update_funnelReplace a funnel's name and steps with a full update: send every step, not only changed ones. Get the funnelId from list_funnels; requires funnels:write.
Replace a funnel's name and steps. This is a full update: send every step, not only the ones that change. Needs funnels:write. Get the funnelId from list_funnels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| steps | Yes | ||
| funnelId | Yes | ||
| utmCampaign | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the description's real contribution is the full-replacement warning ('send every step, not only the ones that change') plus the required OAuth-style scope, which is genuinely beyond what structured fields convey. It stops short of describing response shape or consequences for omitted steps beyond the replacement note.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the replacement semantics, then the must-send-all-steps caution, then prerequisites. No filler.
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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description carries the important behavioral burden: replacement scope, permission requirement, and id sourcing. Missing only the meaning of the optional utmCampaign parameter.
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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate. It does so for funnelId (source via list_funnels) and for steps (all steps must be sent), but says nothing about utmCampaign or the name field's constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for a 4-parameter tool.
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 ('Replace a funnel's name and steps') and immediately qualifies the semantics as a full replacement rather than a partial patch, which separates it from create_funnel/delete_funnel and from any incremental-edit expectation.
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?
Gives clear preconditions: needs funnels:write, and funnelId must come from list_funnels. It doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over create_funnel or delete_funnel, but the mutation framing makes that fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.