Update fields on an existing CSM case (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update fields on an existing CSM case (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Key-value pairs of fields to update | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the CSM case |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "account": {},
+ "assigned_to": {},
+ "assignment_group": {},
+ "category": {},
+ "close_code": {},
+ "close_notes": {},
+ "contact": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "priority": {},
+ "product": {},
+ "short_description": {},
+ "state": {},
+ "subcategory": {},
+ "work_notes": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds a valuable environmental prerequisite that annotations do not cover: WRITE_ENABLED=true.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It conveys the action, target, and prerequisite immediately.
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 an update tool whose schema enumerates the updatable fields and whose annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is largely sufficient. It does not spell out partial-update behavior or sibling routing, but those are minor gaps against the structured context already provided.
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 high, so the schema already documents the two parameters and their top-level meanings. The description adds no extra syntax, partial-update semantics, or field-level meaning beyond 'fields on an existing CSM case'.
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 fields on an existing CSM case. The word 'existing' helps distinguish it from create_csm_case, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from close_csm_case or other update_* siblings.
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?
It gives an implied usage condition (the case must already exist) and a useful prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However, it does not say when to choose update_csm_case over close_csm_case or other update tools, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.