Update a GRC Entity by sys_id. [Write — requires WRITE_ENABLED=true]
Update a GRC Entity by sys_id. [Write — requires WRITE_ENABLED=true]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, description, profile_class, owned_by, cmdb_ci, framework, functional_domain | |
| sys_id | Yes | 32-char sys_id of the Entity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful gate (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true), but says nothing about partial-update semantics, permission failures, or what happens to unspecified fields.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and lookup key, with the write gate flagged. Nothing is wasteful; it is terse but not under-specified for the schema it sits on.
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 nested-object mutation tool, the essential call information (key, allowed fields, write gate) is present via schema and description. Missing is what the update returns and how partial field updates are applied to omitted properties, which matters since no output schema exists.
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 a 32-char ID and the fields object enumerates all seven allowed keys with additionalProperties=false. The description's "by sys_id" merely restates the schema, 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 ("GRC Entity") plus the lookup key (sys_id), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling mutators like update_grc_issue or update_grc_indicator. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given beyond the implicit "update rather than create/list". The WRITE_ENABLED note is a gate, not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.