Updates the name or description of an existing outline structure by ID, so teachers can revise learning-path outlines without recreating them.
Ändert Name und/oder Beschreibung einer Gliederungsstruktur. (Gleicher Aufruf wie Anlegen, mit id – live geprüft.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| description_html | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: the update is partial ('Name und/oder Beschreibung') and the payload mirrors the create call with an id added. It says nothing about permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved, error handling, or what is returned, and 'live geprüft' is opaque.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the affected fields, with no filler prose. The parenthetical 'live geprüft' is the one segment that does not earn its place, being neither verifiable nor actionable for the agent.
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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much open: permitted operations are narrowed to two fields but the behavior for structural moves, empty payloads, and failure cases is unstated. The agent can construct a basic call but cannot predict the outcome.
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%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning. It does name all three parameters implicitly (id, name, Beschreibung), but it calls the field 'Beschreibung' while the schema key is 'description_html' — the agent gets no signal that HTML markup is expected, and id's role is only implied by 'mit id'.
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?
'Ändert Name und/oder Beschreibung einer Gliederungsstruktur' names a specific verb and resource and enumerates the mutable fields. It distinguishes itself from scobees_create_gliederung only obliquely via 'Gleicher Aufruf wie Anlegen, mit id' rather than stating the distinction outright.
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?
The hint that this is the create call plus an id implies when to reach for it instead of scobees_create_gliederung, but the inference is left to the agent. Nothing says what to do for structural changes (scobees_move) or removals (scobees_delete), nor what to do if neither name nor description is supplied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.