既存マップの要素1件の本文(detail)を書き換える。要素の追加はauto_structure_thought・import_markdown_contextを、チェック状態の変更はupdate_task_statusを使うこと。
既存マップの要素1件の本文(detail)を書き換える。要素の追加はauto_structure_thought・import_markdown_contextを、チェック状態の変更はupdate_task_statusを使うこと。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mapId | Yes | list_mapsで得たマップのID | |
| detail | Yes | 書き換え後の本文(1要素5000文字まで) | |
| elementId | Yes | list_elementsで得た要素のID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / detail / descriptionPrevious value: -"書き換え後の本文"New value: +"書き換え後の本文(1要素5000文字まで)"v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully scopes the mutation to only the detail field (implying other fields are untouched), but says nothing about overwriting existing content being irreversible, permission/auth requirements, or what the tool returns on success.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the disambiguation routing.
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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and sibling routing well, and the schema fills in all parameter semantics. The only missing piece is behavioral detail about the write itself (overwrite semantics, success/failure response).
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 coverage is 100%: mapId, elementId, and detail are all documented in the schema, including the 5000-character limit. The description mentions detail but adds no format or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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: rewrites the body (detail) of a single element in an existing map. It also names the sibling tools that handle adjacent operations (auto_structure_thought, import_markdown_context, update_task_status), so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: element creation goes to auto_structure_thought or import_markdown_context, and check-state changes go to update_task_status. This is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternatives statement, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.