Edit a stored knowledge item. Provide the item ID and the fields to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The knowledge item ID (from search_twin or list_recent) | |
| tags | No | Replace tags | |
| type | No | Change the type | |
| title | No | New title | |
| content | No | New content (will be re-embedded) | |
| provenance | No | Update provenance: personal / employer / client / external (organisational is legacy) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / provenance / descriptionPrevious value: -"Update provenance: personal / organisational / external"New value: +"Update provenance: personal / employer / client / external (organisational is legacy)"Input schema / properties / provenance / enumPrevious value: -[
- "personal",
- "organisational",
- "external"
-]New value: +[
+ "personal",
+ "organisational",
+ "employer",
+ "client",
+ "external"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Edit' is consistent. It also adds context that the ID comes from search_twin or list_recent, which is helpful. No contradictions.
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, focused sentence with no wasted words. While very brief, it efficiently conveys essential information.
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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks information on return values, side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps for complex usage.
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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description only reinforces the required ID, adding no new semantic value beyond the 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 explicitly states the action 'Edit a stored knowledge item' and specifies the resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_knowledge and delete_knowledge.
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 basic usage guidance ('provide the item ID and the fields to change') but no explicit context on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.
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.