option_updateReplace the full content of an option named by full_title for a given id, returning the new value. Use it to update a specific specification option in an ADR.
Full-content replace of the option named full_title (plan §5), 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a full-content replace (not a partial update) and that it returns the new content, which is useful. However, it omits permissions, idempotency, and what happens if the option does not exist.
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?
Single, compact sentence with the key operation front-loaded. It wastes little space, though it could be slightly clearer about the return value.
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?
It has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. But with zero annotation and zero schema coverage, the description leaves gaps about parameter roles and update semantics, making it only minimally adequate.
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 should compensate. It only explains that 'full_title' identifies the option; it does not clarify 'id', 'value', or the relationship between id and full_title, leaving two of three parameters semantically unexplained.
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+resource ('Full-content replace of the option') and names the mechanism (plan §5). It clearly differentiates from siblings like option_read or option_list, though the 'full_title' naming is idiosyncratic.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not indicate when to prefer option_update over option_create or option_delete, nor any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.