Set one GitHub Projects v2 item's Priority by exact option name, with authorization, idempotency, verification, and actor-aware audit.
Compatibility alias for the semantic Priority write path. Safely sets one item's exact Priority option by name with authorization, idempotency, verification, and actor-aware audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| itemId | Yes | ||
| number | Yes | ||
| priority | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description usefully adds that the write involves authorization, verification, and an actor-aware audit trail—genuine behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though delivered as a keyword list rather than specifics.
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 sentences that are reasonably front-loaded with the alias/compatibility role, but the second sentence is a dense pile of buzzwords ('semantic', 'actor-aware audit') that crowds out actionable detail.
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?
A four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage needs the description to explain the parameters and expected behavior; instead it explains none of them and only alludes to verification/audit outcomes.
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 all four required parameters (owner, number, itemId, priority), so the description carries the full burden. It only hints that priority is an exact option 'by name' and says nothing about owner, number, itemId, or accepted values, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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?
It states a clear verb (sets) and resource (one item's exact Priority option), and the word 'Priority' distinguishes it from sibling update_github_project_item_status. However, 'Compatibility alias for the semantic Priority write path' is opaque jargon that doesn't tell the agent what it aliases, adding noise rather than 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?
'Compatibility alias' implies a backward-compatibility use case, which is a weak usage signal. It never says when to choose this over update_work_item_priority or update_github_project_item_field, so the agent must infer precedence among several Priority-writing siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.