Save the current ELN template by updating its form, extra, and table JSON definitions in one request. Preserve your template design changes with a single PATCH operation.
PATCH 保存 formTemplateJson + extra + tableTemplateJson。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it is a PATCH operation that saves three fields, implying a write operation but without disclosing side effects like overwriting existing data, requiring authentication, or expected response. The limited transparency leaves significant uncertainty about the tool's 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the HTTP method and the key fields. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes to conveying the core action. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.
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?
Given the large number of sibling tools, the lack of parameter details, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly call the tool in context. It does not explain what formTemplateJson, extra, or tableTemplateJson represent, nor when to use this over other template-related tools. The information is too minimal for confident usage.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by naming the three fields involved (formTemplateJson, extra, tableTemplateJson), which provides some semantic context beyond the empty schema. However, it does not elaborate on the structure or meaning of these fields, keeping the addition at a basic level.
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?
The description states a specific verb (PATCH) and resource (saving formTemplateJson, extra, tableTemplateJson). It clearly indicates the tool performs a partial update on these template fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from other template-related tools like create_template or update_template_metadata, relying on inference from the field names. The purpose is mostly clear but not fully differentiated.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention applicable contexts, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like create_template or update_template_metadata. An agent would have to guess when to invoke this rather than other template save/update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.