Update knowledge-base page fields like title, body, summary, or kind by providing the page ID. Modify existing KB entries to keep documentation accurate.
Update fields on a knowledge-base page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| summary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only and non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'fields', such as whether omitted fields are left untouched, how kind is constrained, or what happens when an invalid id is supplied. It does not contradict the 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse. It is concise but could have used the same space to list updatable fields or note the required id without becoming verbose.
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 five parameters, one required field, an enum, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, update behavior (merge/replace), and any relationship to sibling create/delete tools, leaving a substantial inference burden on the agent.
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 0%, so the description is wholly responsible for explaining parameters, but it merely says 'fields' without naming or clarifying any of them. It does not mention that id is required, that kind is restricted to wiki/run/note, or that body/title/summary are optional.
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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a knowledge-base page'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like kb_page_create, kb_page_get, and kb_page_delete. It does not enumerate which fields can be updated, but the schema supplies those names, so the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over invariance_kb_page_create or invariance_kb_page_delete, nor any mention that an existing page id must already exist. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions indicating the appropriate context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.