Update an existing module's attributes (name, dates, members, status) in a project by supplying its module ID and the fields to change.
Update an existing module
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the module to update | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the module | |
| module_data | Yes | The fields to update on the module |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 extremely concise at just three words: 'Update an existing module.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success versus failure, what permissions are needed, or what data is returned. The input schema is well-documented, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output context.
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%, with all parameters documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
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 'Update an existing module' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('module'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of a module can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like update_cycle or update_issue, which follow the same pattern.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings include create_module and delete_module, the description doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing module ID or when update might fail. There's also no comparison to other update tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.