Update existing announcements by modifying their title, message, level, schedule, or published status. Correct or refresh previously posted information.
既存のお知らせを更新します。APIトークンが必要です。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 更新するお知らせのID | |
| level | No | お知らせレベル | |
| title | No | お知らせタイトル | |
| ends_at | No | 公開終了日時（ISO 8601形式） | |
| link_url | No | 関連リンクURL（http/httpsのみ） | |
| is_active | No | 公開状態 | |
| starts_at | No | 公開開始日時（ISO 8601形式） | |
| message_ja | No | お知らせ本文（日本語） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that an API token is required but does not clarify whether this is a partial or full update, what validation occurs, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects the operation has.
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 concise with two short sentences and no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the authentication requirement, though it could contain more behavioral detail without becoming bloated.
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?
The schema documents all parameters, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description does not clarify update semantics such as partial updates or success/failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an 8-parameter mutation tool.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the 8 parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states '既存のお知らせを更新します' (updates existing announcements), which is a specific verb plus resource. The word '既存' clearly distinguishes this update operation from create, delete, and list sibling 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 only guidance provided is that an API token is required. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus create_announcement, delete_announcement, or other related tools, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the token.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.