option_updateReplaces an option's full content by its identifier and returns the updated value, enabling direct modification of stored option data.
Full-content replace of the option named full_title, returning the new content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| full_title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. 'Full-content replace' is genuinely useful: it warns that existing content not included in the call will be lost, and 'returning the new content' discloses the response. But it says nothing about which document is mutated, whether the option must already exist, or what happens if full_title does not match an existing option.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive 'Full-content replace' fact is stated first, which is the right ordering for a write operation.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the role of 'id', the target document, and the precondition that the named option exist all unaddressed.
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 must compensate and largely does not. It identifies full_title as the option name, but 'id' is entirely unexplained (ADR id? option id?) and the meaning of 'value' as the replacement content is only hinted at via 'returning the new content', which describes the return value rather than the input.
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 a specific verb and effect ('Full-content replace') applied to a specific resource ('the option named full_title'), which is enough to tell it apart from option_create/option_delete/option_read and from update_section/update_frontmatter. It stops short of 5 because it never says which document/parent the option belongs to, so 'option' remains abstract.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the obvious alternatives (option_create, option_delete, edit, update_section). The agent is left to infer that this is the mutation counterpart of option_read purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.