Change one authorized GitHub Project work item's Priority by exact option name, with idempotency, verification, and actor-aware audit.
Semantically update one authorized GitHub Project work item's Priority by exact option name. Uses Shared Core 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, so mentioning 'idempotency' adds no new information. It does add useful context beyond annotations – authorization requirement ('one authorized'), verification, and actor-aware audit – but 'Shared Core' is unexplained jargon the agent cannot act on.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the supporting mechanisms second. Efficient, though the trailing 'Shared Core authorization, idempotency, verification, and actor-aware audit' list is dense jargon.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage needs more: the four required parameters are largely undefined, the exact-option-name format and project/owner conventions are not specified, and the mechanism for choosing this tool over its duplicate sibling is absent. Annotations cover the safety profile but not the operational details.
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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It clarifies only that priority must be an exact option name; owner, number, and itemId (all required) receive no semantic explanation whatsoever.
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+resource: updating one GitHub Project work item's Priority field. The qualifiers 'semantically' and 'by exact option name' narrow intent, but with a near-identical sibling (update_github_project_item_priority) present, the description offers no differentiation between the two, leaving ambiguity about which twin to call.
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?
No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing between this tool and its confusingly similar sibling update_github_project_item_priority. Only the scope constraint 'one ... work item' hints at usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.