project_updateRevision-safely edit project context. Supply expected_revision from project_get and a new request_id. Stale edits conflict instead of overwriting another agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| goals | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| context_kind | No | ||
| repository_url | No | ||
| expected_revision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / context_kindAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "personal",
+ "business",
+ "client",
+ "contract",
+ "unclassified"
+ ],
+ "title": "Context Kind",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value by explaining the optimistic-concurrency contract: stale edits conflict rather than silently overwriting another agent's work. It does not explain partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared), which is the remaining behavioral unknown.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the revision-safety purpose front-loaded before the operational instructions. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the concurrency contract is well covered. However, for an 8-parameter update tool at 0% schema coverage, the description should at minimum indicate which fields are editable and whether this is a full or partial update.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, but it only explains 2 of them (expected_revision, request_id). The editable payload fields (name, goals, summary, context_kind, repository_url) and their constraints are left entirely undocumented by both schema and description.
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 and resource ('edit project context') qualified by the distinguishing trait 'revision-safely', which separates it from plain project_create/project_get siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling to route against.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent where expected_revision comes from (project_get) and that a new request_id must be supplied, which is genuine when/how guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this versus project_create or what happens to fields the caller omits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.