Move a watched project to a new pipeline stage and/or append a note. The project must already be in your pipeline. (requires API key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Project slug | |
| notes | No | ||
| stage | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that notes are appended (not overwritten), but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description is very concise, consisting of just three short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential preconditions without superfluous content.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and precondition but omits potential error behavior, return values, and permission details (beyond API key). It is sufficient for simple use but not fully complete.
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 low (33%), but the description adds value by clarifying that notes are appended. However, it does not explain slug or stage beyond what is in the schema, missing an opportunity to compensate for low coverage.
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 tool moves a watched project to a new pipeline stage and/or appends a note. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_project (creates) and list_watches (reads). The verb 'update' is implied by the name and action.
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 description specifies a precondition: the project must already be in the pipeline. It also mentions requiring an API key. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, missing the full 5-point criteria.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action on a specific resource (commitments, intros, projects, watches) with no overlap. For example, list_projects vs search_projects differ by filtering, and list_watches vs watch_project are clearly separate.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., acknowledge_commitment, list_projects, update_watch. The verbs are imperative and the nouns clearly indicate the resource.
14 tools cover the core interactions of a fundraising platform—project discovery, pipeline management, intros, and commitments—without being bloated or insufficient.
The tool set covers the investor and founder journey well, but lacks project creation/update tools for founders, which is a minor gap given the server's focus on round interactions.