Update an existing PA dashboard (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update an existing PA dashboard (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Fields to update (name, description, roles, active, etc.) | |
| sys_id | Yes | Dashboard sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "active": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "name": {},
+ "roles": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful operational prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true). However it says nothing about partial-update semantics — e.g. whether omitted fields in the `fields` object are cleared or left untouched.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical prerequisite could be slightly more explicit about how to satisfy it.
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 schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally adequate. The gaps — partial vs full update behavior, and what a successful update returns — are not covered by an output schema, so the description could carry more.
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 100%: sys_id is documented as 'Dashboard sys_id' and `fields` is documented as the field bag (name, description, roles, active). The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond that, 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 and resource: 'Update an existing PA dashboard'. That is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools (get_pa_dashboard, list_pa_dashboards) and from create_dashboard, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
'An existing' implies the dashboard must already exist and the WRITE_ENABLED note signals a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of create_dashboard for the non-existing case. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.