Modify an existing formula in ELN templates by ID, updating title, variables, expression, or write form value.
按 ID 更新已有公式。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| variables | No | ||
| expression | No | ||
| writeFormValue | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but doesn't disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether the formula must already exist. No interpretation of response or failure modes is given.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, stating the essential action and object. However, it is under-specified; it lacks structure beyond the bare statement, so it doesn't earn a 5 but is not verbose.
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 mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers the ID. It is highly incomplete—an agent has no information about the remaining parameters' purposes, the expected response, or any constraints. The tool is practically unusable without external knowledge.
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 0% and the description provides no parameter details beyond the ID mention in the text. The schema has five parameters (id, title, variables, expression, writeFormValue) with no explanations, and the description adds no semantic value for the other four.
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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (formula), and specifies the key identifier (ID). It differentiates from siblings like add_formula, list_formulas, and remove_formula by explicitly noting 'update existing'.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., formula must exist), scenarios where updating is preferred over adding/removing, or any exclusions. An agent is left without routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.