Update a Virtual Agent topic properties. [Write]
Update a Virtual Agent topic properties. [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, description, category, active, fulfillment_type | |
| sys_id | Yes | Topic sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Fields to update (name, description, active, etc.)"New value: +"Allowed fields: name, description, category, active, fulfillment_type"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "active": {},
+ "category": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "fulfillment_type": {},
+ "name": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description only repeats that this is a write operation via the **[Write]** tag and adds no further behavioral context such as permission requirements, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what the update returns.
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 prose. The added **[Write]** tag is redundant with the annotations, slightly reducing its efficiency.
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-field mutation tool with no output schema, the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety hints. However, the description does not clarify update semantics such as partial versus full replacement, prerequisites, or expected outcome, leaving meaningful context gaps.
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 schema fully documents sys_id and the allowed fields object. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a Virtual Agent topic properties'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as create_va_topic or get_va_topic, but the verb/resource combination is sufficiently distinct.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of create_va_topic, get_va_topic, or list_va_topics_full. It also omits prerequisites or conditions for updating a topic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.