Update an existing Backlog wiki page by ID, changing its title or content and optionally sending email notifications.
Updates an existing wiki page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name of the wiki page | |
| wikiId | Yes | Wiki ID | |
| content | No | Content of the wiki page | |
| mailNotify | No | Whether to send notification emails (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.5Input schema / properties / wikiId / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / wikiId / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether content replaces or appends, whether name is optional, or that mailNotify can trigger emails, which is the only genuinely new behavioral fact an agent would need.
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?
A single five-word sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness trades away information that the other dimensions penalize.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with four parameters and no output schema. The description never says which fields get changed, whether content fully overwrites the page, or what a successful update returns — gaps that matter for an overwrite-style 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 all four parameters (name, wikiId, content, mailNotify) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Updates an existing wiki page'), and the word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from add_wiki. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling read/add tools, so differentiation is only inferable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_wiki or get_wiki, no prerequisites such as the page needing to already exist (only implied), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.