Modify an existing FAQ entry by ID to change its question, answer, keywords, category, or active status. Editing text triggers re-embedding for accurate matching.
Update an FAQ. Partial update. Changing question, answer or keywords re-embeds it; changing only active does not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Numeric id. | |
| active | No | ||
| answer | No | ||
| keywords | No | Comma-separated hints for matching. | |
| question | No | ||
| category_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond that: which field edits trigger re-embedding and which do not, which is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs before editing an FAQ. It stops short of saying what happens on a missing id or whether errors surface.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action and the partial-update semantics front-loaded before the re-embedding caveat. No repetition of the name or filler.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the most consequential behavior (re-embedding) well. It leaves gaps on category_id handling, non-existent ids, and whether the updated record is returned, so an agent still has open questions when invoking it.
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 coverage is only 33% (id and keywords are the only documented properties), so the description has to carry weight and it does explain the effect of question, answer, keywords, and active. But category_id is never mentioned in either schema or description, leaving one of six parameters' effect on re-embedding completely ambiguous.
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?
"Update an FAQ. Partial update." gives a clear verb and resource, and the partial-update qualifier separates it from create_faq/get_faq/delete_faq in the sibling list. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
"Partial update" tells the agent it may send only the fields to change, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_faq/list_faqs guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.