Modify existing documents in Outline wiki by editing titles, content, or appending new information to maintain current documentation.
Update an existing document. Can append content with append mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| append | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'append mode' which adds some context about how updates work, but fails to address critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise - just two short sentences that get straight to the point. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a key behavioral detail.
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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain parameter relationships, update behavior, permissions needed, and expected outcomes. The mention of 'append mode' is helpful but insufficient for the tool's complexity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It mentions 'append mode' which relates to the 'append' parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'documentId', 'title', or 'text' parameters, nor their relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
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 resource ('an existing document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_document' by specifying it works on existing documents, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'batch_update_documents' or other update-related tools.
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 provides minimal guidance - it mentions 'append mode' but doesn't explain when to use append vs. replace, nor when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'batch_update_documents' or 'move_document'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.