Update an elective task’s name, description, minimum task count, color, or cover image while leaving unspecified fields unchanged.
Ändert eine Wahlpflichtaufgabe (Name, Beschreibung, Mindestanzahl, Farbe, Titelbild). Nicht angegebene Felder bleiben erhalten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| cover_image_path | No | ||
| description_html | No | ||
| mindest_aufgaben | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: unlisted fields are preserved (partial-merge semantics) rather than overwritten. It says nothing about permissions, whether the id must exist, what happens on invalid values, or what is returned.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the partial-update rule. No filler.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the editable field set and merge behavior but omits return value, error behavior, and any auth or permission requirement. Adequate, but there are clear 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does map five of the six parameters to human terms (Name, Beschreibung, Mindestanzahl, Farbe, Titelbild). Only id is left unexplained, and its meaning is self-evident as the required identifier.
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 (ändert) and resource (Wahlpflichtaufgabe) and enumerates the editable fields. The resource naming separates it from scobees_update_aufgabe and scobees_update_lernpfad, though it does not explicitly reference those siblings for disambiguation.
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 conditions for when to use this instead of scobees_update_aufgabe or scobees_update_gliederung, and no prerequisites or permission notes. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.