Update an existing knowledge base document by ID, changing its name or content to keep stored reference material accurate.
Update Document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| documentation_id | Yes | The id of a document from the knowledge base. This is returned on document addition. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints, such as what fields are affected, authorization requirements, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.
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 technically concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. For a mutation tool with three parameters, two words do not provide enough front-loaded structure to be useful.
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 a mutation tool with incomplete parameter documentation, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this description omits essential context about purpose, usage, affected fields, and expected behavior. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 only 33%, with just documentation_id documented. The description 'Update Document' adds no meaning for the name, content, or documentation_id parameters, so it fails to compensate for the sparse schema documentation.
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 verb and resource ('Update Document'), but it does not clarify the scope: whether this is a knowledge-base document, a file document, or another document type. It also does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as update_file_document_route or refresh_url_document_route.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related update/list/delete document tools. The description gives no routing or selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.