Update an existing document type in Paperless-NGX by revising its name, match pattern, or matching algorithm.
Update an existing document type's name, matching pattern, or matching algorithm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| match | No | ||
| matching_algorithm | No | Matching algorithm: 0=None, 1=Any word, 2=All words, 3=Exact match, 4=Regular expression, 5=Fuzzy word, 6=Automatic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states required permissions, whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, or that this is a destructive mutation — all important for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure concision.
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?
A four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage needs considerably more from the description than one sentence. Critical information about required fields, side effects, and failure modes is absent.
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 only 25% (just matching_algorithm), but the description partly compensates by glossing 'match' as 'matching pattern' and naming the algorithm field. It still doesn't explain the required 'id', the meaning/format of the pattern value, or how it interacts with the chosen algorithm.
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 ('Update') and resource ('document type') plus the three mutable attributes, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling create/delete/list/get_document_type operations. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the conditions that separate them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the document type must already exist), and no mention of the create/delete/bulk_edit siblings that could be mistaken for it. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.