Change state details such as name, color, or sequence by passing project and state identifiers with updated data.
Update an existing state
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the state to update | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the state | |
| state_data | Yes | The fields to update on the state |
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this is a safe operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or any side effects. The single phrase 'Update an existing state' provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.
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 maximally concise at just three words. While severely under-specified, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. This extreme brevity represents efficient communication, though at the cost of completeness.
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 mutation tool with 3 required parameters (including a complex nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'state' is, what fields are updatable, what the operation returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on the description.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters (project_id, state_id, state_data) and their nested properties. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value through examples, constraints, or usage patterns.
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 state' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'update_state' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'state' but lacks specificity about what a 'state' represents in this system or what aspects can be updated, making it only marginally better than just the name alone.
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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_state', 'delete_state', 'get_state', and 'list_states', there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiation from related operations. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.