Update the code content of an existing CMS file, optionally rename it, and revise storefront pages managed in WebCake.
Update the code content of an existing CMS file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | CMS file ID | |
| name | No | Rename file | |
| content | Yes | New code content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.31.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=false already declares this is a mutation, and the description confirms it via 'Update'. The word 'existing' usefully signals the file must already exist (no upsert), but there is no disclosure of permissions, reversibility, versioning interplay, or whether content is replaced wholesale.
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 efficient sentence with the key constraint front-loaded, zero filler. It loses a point only because its brevity drops the rename functionality rather than for any verbosity.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the schema carries parameter detail and the annotation carries the safety profile, so the description is minimally viable. It still leaves the rename behavior and usage context unstated.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description only echoes the `content` parameter ('code content') and ignores the rename `name` parameter, adding essentially no meaning beyond the schema baseline.
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 (code content of a CMS file), making it clearly distinct from create_cms_file and list_cms_files. However, it omits the rename capability that the `name` parameter exposes, so it does not fully describe what the tool can change.
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 siblings like create_cms_file or save_file_version, nor any preconditions other than the implied 'existing' file. An agent must infer the selection context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.