Rename a DataForge project version or set it as the global published version.
WRITES TO DATAFORGE. Rename a version or make it the global (published) one. Versions have no description field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| is_global | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | DataForge project id | |
| version_id | Yes | Project version id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context by clarifying the two update effects and noting that versions have no description field. However, it does not explain consequences like whether setting a new global version demotes the previous one or what 'destructive' means in this context.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The mutation warning is front-loaded, and the functional scope is stated directly. The additional note about versions lacking a description field is relevant and earns its place.
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?
The operation is simple and the annotations carry the safety profile, but the description does not clarify whether one of name/is_global is required to perform a meaningful update. Since there is no output schema and no return-value documentation, a slightly more explicit statement about update requirements would make this fully complete.
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 coverage is 50%, and the description compensates only partially for the undocumented 'name' and 'is_global' parameters by mapping them to 'rename' and 'global (published)'. It does not explain that at least one of these is likely expected, their exact effects, or any constraints on the name value.
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 begins with a clear mutation marker, 'WRITES TO DATAFORGE,' and then specifies two concrete operations: renaming a version or making it the global/published version. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like df_create_version, df_delete_version, and df_list_versions.
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 intended use is implied well: use this when you need to rename an existing version or change which version is global. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives like df_create_version for creating versions or df_delete_version for removing them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.