Create or update a named concept page with Markdown content, enabling structured knowledge capture within the audit governance system.
创建/更新 concept 页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | concept 名称 | |
| content | Yes | concept 内容（Markdown） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a write operation but does not disclose whether updates overwrite content, how existing concepts are identified, or what side effects occur. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and only covers the bare upsert intent.
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 or repetition. It is concise, though slightly too terse to convey important upsert semantics.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key context missing: how update is triggered, whether content is replaced wholesale, and what the tool returns. The tool may be simple, but an agent cannot fully infer correct invocation behavior from this description alone.
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 100%, so name and content are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, such as whether name is the unique key for updates, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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 clear verb-resource pair: '创建/更新 concept 页' (create/update concept page). It differentiates from read/delete/list concept siblings by signaling mutation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_entity, update_entity, or read_concept. It also does not explain the conditions under which a create versus an update occurs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.