Update a project's title, description, manager, start date, or due date. Specify the project ID and any fields to change.
Change a project's title, description, manager or dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | New description. | |
| title | No | New title. | |
| due_date | No | New due date. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project to update. | |
| start_date | No | New start date. | |
| manager_email | No | New manager email. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the change operation without explaining whether updates are partial (only provided fields), how null values are handled, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 6 parameters.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The main action and target are front-loaded. It is concise but not under-specified to the point of obscuring the purpose.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain critical details like partial update behavior, required vs optional fields beyond the schema, or any operational constraints. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds little beyond listing the fields, which are already in the schema. It does not clarify relationships (e.g., whether dates must be in a specific format) or update semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Change') and the resource ('a project'), and enumerates the specific fields affected (title, description, manager, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update_task or update_comment, which target other resources. It is slightly generic but adequate.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the resource name implies projects, no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The agent must infer usage from the schema and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.