Update an existing email notification (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update an existing email notification (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Fields to update: name, subject, message_html, active, condition, etc. | |
| sys_id | Yes | Notification sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "active": {},
+ "collection": {},
+ "condition": {},
+ "event_name": {},
+ "message_html": {},
+ "name": {},
+ "recipient_fields": {},
+ "schedule": {},
+ "subject": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is idempotent, is open-world, and is non-destructive. The description adds the useful WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite but does not explain partial-update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, or effects on active notifications.
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 immediately conveys the action, target, and key prerequisite.
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?
With a fully described two-parameter schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the main missing operational prerequisite, WRITE_ENABLED=true. It could be richer about partial update behavior, but the structured fields already carry most invocation details.
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%, so the schema already documents sys_id as the notification sys_id and fields as the updatable fields. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which is appropriate for the baseline when schema coverage is high.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: update an existing email notification. It is clearly distinct from create_notification, list_notifications, and get_notification by the update action, though it does not explicitly contrast with those 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 states the operation is for an existing email notification and gives a prerequisite, WRITE_ENABLED=true. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this rather than create_notification, schedule_notification, or send_emergency_broadcast.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.