Update a project section's title or color by sending only the fields you want to change.
Updates a section's title or colour. Send only the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body for updating a section. Both fields are optional; send only what you want to change. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project the section belongs to. | |
| sectionId | Yes | Section to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation; the description usefully adds that it is a partial merge (unsent fields are preserved), which is the key behavioral risk for an update tool. It says nothing about required permissions, whether a colour/title change is reversible, or what the response contains.
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, zero filler, with the mutation scope front-loaded before the calling instruction. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
For a nested-body mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the core semantics but leaves gaps: empty-body behavior, the accepted colour format, and permission requirements are unaddressed. Adequate to call correctly, not 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 description coverage is 100% and the nested body already documents Color, Title and UpdatedByName with omit-to-leave-unchanged semantics. The description only reinforces the partial-update rule at the top level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g. what colour format the app stores).
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 and resource ('Updates a section's title or colour') and enumerates the mutable fields, which separates it cleanly from gorelo_create_project_section and gorelo_list_project_sections. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb makes the distinction unambiguous.
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?
'Send only the fields you want to change' gives real partial-update guidance that shapes how the agent should call it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives, so usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.