Replace or assign the parent of a Productboard entity using child and new parent UUIDs. Use it to update hierarchy relationships when an item's parent changes.
Set or replace the parent of a Productboard entity. Uses PUT to replace any existing parent relationship.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityId | Yes | Child entity UUID | |
| parentId | Yes | New parent entity UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation uses PUT and replaces any existing parent relationship, but it does not cover permissions, side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the parent is invalid.
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 wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the replacement behavior.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation and the replace semantics. It leaves minor gaps around authorization and error behavior, but no annotation or output schema requires further explanation.
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 100%, and both parameters are documented in the schema as UUIDs for child and new parent. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb+resource: it sets or replaces the parent of a Productboard entity. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_entity_relationship or update_entity because it directly names the parent-linking operation.
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?
It implies usage by saying 'Set or replace the parent,' which tells the agent this is the tool for assigning a parent. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives such as create_entity_relationship, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.