Transfer project ownership to a new owner in the same company with an ownership-capable role.
WRITES TO DATAFORGE. Transfer project ownership. The new owner must belong to the project's company and hold an ownership-capable role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| new_owner_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already flag a destructive, non-read-only operation; the description reinforces this with the leading 'WRITES TO DATAFORGE' warning and adds a role/company precondition. It does not explicitly detail the consequences such as the previous owner losing access, but 'transfer' plus the destructiveHint supplies the core safety signal.
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 short sentences, with the mutation warning front-loaded and the transfer action stated immediately. There is no filler or redundant explanation.
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 two-parameter tool with annotations covering mutation/destructiveness and no output schema, the definition conveys the action, the key eligibility constraint, and the write nature. It could state the effect on the previous owner or the expected response, but those are reasonably inferable from 'transfer' and the existing annotations.
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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that new_owner_id must be an eligible user (same company, ownership-capable role) and implies project_id is the project whose ownership changes, but it does not explicitly map each parameter or describe types or formats beyond the schema.
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 states a clear verb ('Transfer'), resource ('project ownership'), and a meaningful eligibility constraint. It is easily distinguished from sibling access-management tools like df_set_project_access and df_revoke_project_access because it concerns ownership rather than access grants.
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?
It provides an explicit eligibility precondition: the new owner must belong to the project's company and hold an ownership-capable role, which tells the agent when a transfer is valid. It does not name alternative tools or conditions for choosing a different operation, so the guidance is contextful but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.