Update a Marketing Cloud Next / Data 360 record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool modifies a record, supports PATCH or PUT, and specifies PATCH partial-update behavior. However, it does not mention authentication, response shape, idempotency, or whether PUT fully replaces fields, so the behavioral picture is only partially drawn.

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 compact: three short sentences front-load the operation, the required inputs, and the PATCH-specific rule. The phrase 'kind "update"' is slightly redundant, and the requirements sentence is imprecise, but overall the structure is scannable and free of 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to cover request construction, response expectations, and sibling-tool alternatives. It covers only request essentials and PATCH behavior, omitting response info, PUT full-replacement semantics, and how to distinguish this tool from the many Salesforce update siblings. An agent would still face meaningful uncertainty when 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds useful context by explaining PATCH partial-update semantics and the need for a JSON body. However, its claim that the path parameter and body are required conflicts with the input schema, where only endpointId is required. This inconsistency weakens the reliability of the parameter guidance.

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 and resource: 'Update a record (PATCH or PUT)', and the title anchors it to Marketing Cloud Next / Data 360. This clearly separates it from siblings like mcnext_create, mcnext_delete, mcnext_query, and mcnext_read. The 'kind "update"' phrase is redundant, but it does not reduce clarity.

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 establishes clear usage context: update an existing record, with PATCH/PUT semantics and a concrete PATCH rule ('include only the fields to change'). It also names required inputs, though those requirements conflict with the schema's required list. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as mcnext_create or sf_update_record, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.