Update a Compliance Policy by sys_id. [Write — requires WRITE_ENABLED=true]
Update a Compliance Policy by sys_id. [Write — requires WRITE_ENABLED=true]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, description, state, policy_category, category, classification, owner, owning_group, kb_knowledge_base, approval_method, article_template, audience, valid_from, valid_to | |
| sys_id | Yes | 32-char sys_id of the Policy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful operational gate (WRITE_ENABLED=true) that annotations do not express. However it never says whether this is a partial/merge update or a replace, nor what happens to the numerous fields not supplied — the most important behavioral question for a 14-field update tool.
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?
Two short sentences, action first and the gate second; every element carries information and nothing is padded. Slightly clipped for a mutation tool, but structurally sound.
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 2-parameter, fully described schema with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is mutation semantics: merge vs replace and error/return behavior are left entirely implicit, and the WRITE_ENABLED flag is mentioned without saying what failure looks like when it is off.
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 already enumerates the 14 allowed properties with additionalProperties=false. The description contributes only 'by sys_id', which merely restates the required key. Baseline 3 applies since the 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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (Compliance Policy) plus the identifying key (sys_id), which clearly separates it from create_compliance_policy, list_compliance_policies and get_compliance_policy. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation comes from the verb rather than from prose.
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 only usage-relevant content is the WRITE_ENABLED notice. There is no statement of when to choose update over create or get, no prerequisites about policy state, and no exclusion for retired policies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.