Replace title/body/tags/pinned/priority using expected_version. Shared notes editable by editors; messages/task definitions by author or owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| replayed | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / data / properties / body / descriptionPrevious value: -"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience; no full chat transcripts, credentials or restricted personal records. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."New value: +"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."Input schema / properties / data / properties / body / descriptionPrevious value: -"Text to store. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."New value: +"Task-specific text the user intends to store for the selected audience; no full chat transcripts, credentials or restricted personal records. Non-empty, at most 20 KiB UTF-8 (replies/evidence at most 10 KiB)."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for update_space_entry. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "help": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "next_action",
+ "help"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replayed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / data / properties / operation_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional stable client key scoped to this agent for 30 days. Reuse identical payload after a timeout. Different payload conflicts. Retry returns compact operation receipt, not original body. Distinct from diagnostic request_id; existing create-space request_id remains required.",
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "pattern": "^[a-z0-9]+(-[a-z0-9]+)*$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral details beyond that: which fields get replaced, that expected_version gates the write, and who is authorized to edit which entry kinds. It does not mention the schema's 'omitted tags are cleared' behavior, though that is documented in the schema itself.
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 tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: the first states the operation and field scope, the second states the authorization model. No filler or repetition.
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?
Given the destructive annotation, rich input schema, and availability of an output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: fields, versioning, and permissions. It stops short of explicit tool-routing guidance, but the remaining details are carried by the schema and annotations.
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 low at 50%, and the description compensates only partially by naming the mutable fields and the version guard. It does not clarify that tags/pinned/priority are optional or describe operation_key semantics, which leaves the more complete parameter understanding to the input schema.
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 states a specific action and resource: replace title/body/tags/pinned/priority on a space entry, using expected_version. It clearly separates this from create, delete, restore, and other sibling operations.
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 provides clear context for when the tool applies: updating existing space entries with a version guardaine, and it spells out authorization boundaries by entry type. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.