Update an existing FAQ entry by providing its ID, question, answer, and display order. Ensure all three fields are supplied to successfully modify the record.
Update an existing FAQ — all three fields (question, answer, display_order) must be supplied
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| display_order | Yes | ||
| faq_entity_id | Yes | FAQ entity ID from list_faqs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only restates the schema requirement that all three fields are required, which is already captured by the input schema. It does not disclose what happens if the FAQ doesn't exist, whether fields are overwritten, or any error behavior. Annotations only provide destructiveHint: false, which is minimal, so the description carries the burden but adds no new behavioral context.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the critical requirement. No wasted words.
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 simple CRUD update, the description gives the essential constraint, but it lacks guidance on return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., valid entity ID). Given low schema coverage and no output schema, the agent is left without information on what happens on success or failure.
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?
The description mentions the three field names but does not add any semantic meaning beyond the schema property names. Schema coverage is only 25% (only faq_entity_id has a description), and the description does not compensate by explaining the purpose or format of question, answer, or display_order.
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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing FAQ'), and explicitly lists the three fields that must be supplied, distinguishing it from add_faq and remove_faq by noting it operates on an existing item.
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 implies usage for updating existing FAQs but does not explicitly state when to use it over add_faq or remove_faq. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so an agent must infer based on the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.