update_plotRename a kept plot or replace its note; restore a plot from the Trash before updating it.
Rename a kept plot or replace its note. A plot in the Trash must be restored first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | A new name. | |
| note | No | The note, which replaces the one there. | |
| plot_id | Yes | A plot id from list_plots or save_plot. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the precondition that trashed plots must be restored first and signals that the note is replaced (overwritten), which is useful beyond 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key constraint. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 3-param update tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose and precondition adequately. It could clarify partial-update behavior (null defaults meaning 'leave unchanged'), but that is largely implied by the schema.
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 parameters (name, note, plot_id, defaults, length limits) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the two mutable fields without adding format or validation detail; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States specific verbs and resource: rename a plot or replace its note, scoped to 'kept' plots. It doesn't name siblings like save_plot or delete_plot explicitly, but the Trash phrase points toward restore_plot implicitly.
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?
Gives a concrete when-not: a plot in the Trash must be restored first, which implies restore_plot is the right tool in that case. No further routing guidance or exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.