Update venue details such as name, address, city, region, country, postal code, or capacity by providing the venue ID and the new values.
Update an existing venue's details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| capacity | No | ||
| venue_id | Yes | ||
| address_1 | No | ||
| postal_code | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only implies mutation via 'update' but does not state whether the update is partial or full, whether it requires special permissions, whether it is reversible, or what happens if the venue does not exist. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise and easy to process. It does not front-load any critical constraints, but for a simple 'update' purpose, the length is appropriate.
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?
Given the tool complexity (8 parameters including one required) and the lack of annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not mention that all optional fields are nullable and default to unchanged behavior, nor does it explain the response format (even though output schema exists). An agent would not know how to correctly construct the call for partial updates.
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 0%, meaning the description adds no parameter-specific guidance. The schema provides the property names and types, but the description does not explain which fields are updatable or how they relate. Since the schema is detailed with titles and defaults, the description's lack of param info is a gap but not catastrophic; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (update) and the resource (an existing venue), which is specific enough to differentiate from create_venue and get_venue. It lacks mention of which fields can be updated, but the verb+resource combination is clear.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other venue-related tools like create_venue or get_venue. It does not mention that this should be used only for existing venues (implied by 'existing') but provides no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.