Update a project's name and/or description.
Only the fields you provide are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional new project name. | |
| api_key | No | CatchAll API key. Optional if provided via x-api-key header or CATCHALL_API_KEY env var. | |
| project_id | Yes | The project ID to update. | |
| description | No | Optional new project description. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states what fields are updated and that only provided fields change, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or response format. Adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.
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, clear sentences. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word 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?
Tool has 4 parameters, output schema exists, and siblings include many updates on other resources. Description covers the core function but lacks context about return values, required permissions, or edge cases. Acceptable but could be more helpful.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds 'Only the fields you provide are changed' which reinforces optionality, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.
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?
Tool name is 'update_project' and description clearly states it updates a project's name and/or description. Verb and resource are explicit, and it differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_project' and 'delete_project'.
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?
Description mentions 'Only the fields you provide are changed' which implies partial update behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new project or deleting one). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.