Rewrite the body text of a single existing mind map element by providing map ID, element ID, and new detail; use for updating content, not adding elements or changing task status.
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 | |
| elementId | Yes | list_elementsで得た要素のID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully scopes the mutation to the detail field only and implies check state and element count are untouched, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether the previous detail is recoverable, or failure behavior on a missing mapId/elementId. Adequate scoping, incomplete mutation semantics.
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 first states what is changed and at what granularity, the second handles dispatch to siblings. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a 3-parameter mutation tool.
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 covers scope and sibling routing but leaves permissions, reversibility, and error/response behavior unstated. It is callable without ambiguity because the schema is fully documented, but the behavioral envelope is thin.
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% – each of the three parameters is documented inline, including the list_maps/list_elements provenance for the IDs and minLength on detail. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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+resource in one clause: it rewrites the detail body of a single existing map element. It also names the sibling tools that handle the adjacent operations (adding elements, toggling check state), so the agent can distinguish it from auto_structure_thought, import_markdown_context and update_task_status 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 belongs to auto_structure_thought / import_markdown_context, and check-state changes belong to update_task_status. This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives, which is exactly what a crowded sibling set (8 tools) needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.