projects_update_project_phaseUpdate an existing project phase in Smartsheet Resource Management to change its name, budget, start date, end date, or description and keep project plans accurate.
Update an existing project phase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| budget | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| phase_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the description needed to add things like which fields are mutable, whether partial updates are supported, or permission requirements. It adds none of that – a single sentence with no behavioral detail.
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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but at seven undocumented parameters this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but a mutation tool with seven free-form parameters at 0% schema coverage needs the description to carry far more. It is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and zero enum documentation; the description names no fields and explains no semantics. With the schema silent and the description silent, an agent gets no help distinguishing name, budget, start_date, end_date, or description.
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 clear verb+resource ('Update an existing project phase'), which is more than a bare tautology, but it adds nothing beyond the title and does not distinguish itself from siblings like projects_update_project or projects_delete_project_phase.
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 versus projects_update_project, projects_create_project_phase, or other phase operations. The agent must infer context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.