Update a GRC Issue by sys_id. [Write — requires WRITE_ENABLED=true]
Update a GRC Issue by sys_id. [Write — requires WRITE_ENABLED=true]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: short_description, description, state, profile, issue_type, issue_source, classification, impact, urgency, assignment_group, assigned_to, due_date, action_plan, recommendation, close_notes | |
| sys_id | Yes | 32-char sys_id of the Issue |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED gating flag, which is valuable operational context, but says nothing about partial vs full update semantics, validation failures, or field-level side effects. It is consistent with the annotations (no contradiction), just thin beyond them.
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 key, with the write-flag warning immediately visible. It is efficient, though the total absence of any body means brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.
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 with no output schema and no per-field descriptions, the definition is only minimally sufficient: an agent knows the identity key and the allow-list, but not the response shape, whether unspecified fields are cleared, or how validation errors surface. Annotations cover safety, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.
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% and the nested `fields` object enumerates all 15 allowed attributes with additionalProperties=false, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only contributes the meaning of sys_id as the record identifier, which is the schema baseline, not added semantics.
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 a GRC Issue") and names the lookup key (sys_id), which cleanly separates it from list_grc_issues / get_grc_issue / create_grc_issue. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 "requires WRITE_ENABLED=true" note is a real precondition an agent must check before calling, and "by sys_id" implies a record must already exist. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over create_grc_issue, no mention of fetching with get_grc_issue first, and no statement about when-not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.