Update existing user knowledge entries by changing only the fields you provide; omitted fields stay unchanged.
更新已有用户知识条目。
只传需要修改的字段，未传的字段保持不变。
Args:
id: 知识条目 ID（如 uk_1722000000）
content: 新正文（可选）
title: 新标题（可选）
tags: 新标签列表（可选）
Returns:
{id, status: "updated", version}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| content | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait — partial/PATCH semantics where omitted fields are untouched — and names the return shape. It omits auth/permission requirements, error behavior, and the meaning/lifecycle of the returned version, leaving real gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the partial-update rule and clearly delimited Args/Returns sections. Efficient and easy to scan, with only minor redundancy against the schema property titles.
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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers partial-update semantics and return shape, which is close to adequate. It still leaves permissions, error cases, and version semantics unexplained, so it is only minimally complete.
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 it does: all four parameters (id, content, title, tags) are explained, including an example ID format (uk_1722000000) and which fields are optional. It adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema titles.
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 (更新) and resource (已有用户知识条目), and the word 已有 implies it operates on existing records, implicitly distinguishing it from user_knowledge_add/delete/list. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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 line 只传需要修改的字段，未传的字段保持不变 gives meaningful operational guidance on how to call it (partial update). But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives routing or any precondition stated, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.