update_briefOverwrite the project's working brief (jsonb). Hard-capped at 500 KB. Use to revise the AI-generated brief by hand; the original AI output is preserved separately in briefAiOriginal so you can always compare. Does not change status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | project id | |
| brief | Yes | the full replacement brief object (jsonb, ≤500 KB) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / brief / descriptionAdded value: +"the full replacement brief object (jsonb, ≤500 KB)"Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"project id"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the idempotentHint annotation: a hard cap at 500 KB, preservation of original AI output, and no status change. These are useful for the agent. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by constraints and side effects. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple update tool with annotations and output schema, the description covers constraints, usage context, and side effects completely. No gaps.
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%, and the schema itself describes both parameters well. The description adds a size limit (500 KB) and notes it's a full replacement, but this is minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Overwrite' and the resource 'project's working brief', and distinguishes from AI regeneration by stating it is a manual revision. It also notes that the original AI output is preserved, adding clarity.
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 says 'Use to revise the AI-generated brief by hand', providing a clear when-to-use. It implies not to use when AI regeneration is desired, but does not explicitly name the alternative (regenerate_brief). Still, it offers good guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.