Update a component's name, status, description, or model. Requires a project name or ID for every write.
Update a component. Write: requires project="" (or project_id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| model | No | Your model name, if you know it (optional; never guessed) | |
| status | No | ||
| project | No | Project name or id. Required for every write. | |
| description | No | ||
| component_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive write nature is covered. The description restates 'Write' and the project requirement (which the schema also documents), adding little beyond what structured fields already convey, and omits what update destroys or how omitted fields are handled.
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 fragments, front-loaded with the purpose. No filler, though the terseness leaves gaps it could have addressed.
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?
A destructive 6-parameter write with 33% schema coverage and no output schema needs to explain mutation scope (partial update vs replace, what gets destroyed). The description is far too thin for that 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?
Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it only mentions project. Six parameters (name, model, status, description, component_id) are undocumented by both schema and description, and it doesn't explain the status enum or that updates may be partial.
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+resource ('Update a component') that cleanly separates it from siblings like create_component and list_components based on the verb alone. It stops short of describing what fields can be modified, but the core operation is 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?
'Write: requires project="<name>" (or project_id)' implies this is a mutation needing project scope, which is real usage context. However, it gives no when-to-use vs alternatives and no exclusions; it reads more as a parameter prerequisite than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.