update_library_itemUpdate a library document's title and/or content (content edits create a new version).
Args:
item_id: The item UUID
title: New title (optional)
content: New markdown body (optional)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| item_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing that content edits create a new version, a key behavioral nuance not captured in annotations. It does not discuss auth requirements or error conditions, but the versioning detail significantly enhances transparency beyond the structured data.
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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence summarizing the action and versioning effect, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
The description covers the essential behavior (update title/content, versioning on content edits) and the output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, it is ambiguous whether title-only changes also create a new version, and it does not mention how to view old versions (sibling list_library_item_versions) or target a specific version. This leaves some contextual gaps, but overall the tool is adequately defined for a straightforward update operation.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by listing all three parameters with brief but meaningful explanations: item_id is 'the item UUID', title is 'New title (optional)', and content is 'New markdown body (optional)'. This adds clarity beyond the bare schema, though it does not explore edge cases like null vs omitted or validation rules.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a library document's title and/or content' with the additional detail that content edits create a new version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_library_item, delete_library_item, and list_library_item_versions.
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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing library item, which is clear from the context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond versioning behavior. The versioning note is helpful but does not fully clarify usage boundaries.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Portfolio, alert, watchlist, library, journal, and search tools have clearly separated purposes with no overlapping functionality. Even similar tools like get_portfolio_statistics and get_positions provide different outputs.
The majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_portfolio, delete_library_item). However, 'finance_search' inverts the verb-noun order and 'run_deepdive' uses a less common verb, creating minor but noticeable exceptions.
31 tools is on the high side but each serves a distinct purpose across portfolio management, alerts, watchlists, library, journal, search, and bug reporting. The library subsystem alone accounts for 11 tools (CRUD + versions + move + rename + search), which is justifiable for a full document manager.
Core operations are present but several lifecycle gaps exist: no delete_watchlist, delete_portfolio, update_portfolio, update_alert, or delete_transaction. The journal and deepdive areas also lack update/delete capabilities. Agents may hit dead ends when trying to remove or modify certain resources.