Update a worker's name, phone number, or email in TaScan by providing the worker ID and changed profile fields. Use it to keep worker contact details accurate.
Update a worker profile (name, phone, email)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name | |
| No | New email | ||
| phone | No | New phone | |
| worker_id | Yes | Worker ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond restating the update action, which is consistent. No contradiction found.
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 sentence that is direct and free of redundancy: 'Update a worker profile (name, phone, email)'. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the key fields are front-loaded in parentheses.
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 simple CRUD update tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description combined with schema/annotations is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and the updatable fields. Minor gap: it doesn't mention whether the worker must exist or what the response format is, but these are not critical for an update operation.
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?
Input schema has 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions (e.g., 'New name', 'New email', 'Worker ID'). The description merely lists fields that are already documented, adding no additional semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('worker profile'), and lists the fields involved ('name, phone, email'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tascan_create_worker or tascan_update_project, which target different resources or actions.
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 usage: when you need to modify a worker's details, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives (e.g., when to use create_worker instead of update_worker). The context is clear but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.