Update a business rule (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
Update a business rule (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, collection, when, script, condition, active, order, action_insert, action_update, action_delete | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the rule |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Key-value pairs to update (name, script, active, condition, etc.)"New value: +"Allowed fields: name, collection, when, script, condition, active, order, action_insert, action_update, action_delete"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "action_delete": {},
+ "action_insert": {},
+ "action_update": {},
+ "active": {},
+ "collection": {},
+ "condition": {},
+ "name": {},
+ "order": {},
+ "script": {},
+ "when": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the SCRIPTING_ENABLED feature-flag requirement, but says nothing about whether the update merges or replaces existing rule fields, or whether script compilation errors are rejected.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the precondition in parentheses; nothing is wasted, though the brevity leaves behavioral gaps that the sentence could have cheaply closed.
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 two-parameter mutation with full annotations and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. The missing piece is update semantics — partial vs full replacement of the rule definition — which matters for a scripting-bearing object.
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% and the nested 'fields' object documents every allowed field, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about sys_id format or update semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Update) and resource (business rule), which distinguishes it from create_business_rule / get_business_rule / list_business_rules siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 parenthetical prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true) is a real gating condition that tells the agent when the call can succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus create_business_rule or get_business_rule, and no exclusions or workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.