Modify the title or content of an existing document by UUID; content must be HTML, not Markdown. Use when updating stored notes or pages in TextView.
更新已有文档的标题或内容。至少提供 title 或 content 之一。content 必须为 HTML 格式（不要用 Markdown）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 文档 UUID | |
| title | No | 新标题 | |
| content | No | HTML 格式内容。用 <h2> <p> <ul><li> <blockquote> <strong> <em> 等标签，不要用 Markdown。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It mentions the HTML-not-Markdown constraint but omits whether updates overwrite or merge, whether missing fields are preserved, permission requirements, or return behavior.
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?
Three compact sentences, appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and the constraints follow in logical order.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: no overwrite/merge semantics, no permission or validation behavior, and no response contract. The HTML format hint is covered but insufficient for a write operation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including that content must be HTML. The description reiterates the at-least-one-of-title-or-content constraint, which adds a small amount of semantic value but mostly duplicates structured fields.
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 resource ('更新已有文档') and identifies the exact fields being modified (标题或内容). This distinguishes it from siblings save_document and get_document, which respectively create and retrieve.
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?
Provides one constraint — at least one of title or content must be provided — which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, it doesn't explain when to use update_document versus save_document (e.g., editing an existing doc vs. creating a new one).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.