Modify project details such as name, announcement, or completion status to keep TestRail projects accurate and up to date.
Update an existing project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Project name | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID | |
| announcement | No | Project description/announcement | |
| is_completed | No | Mark project as completed | |
| show_announcement | No | Show announcement |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates that an existing project will be updated, but does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens if the project_id does not exist, whether permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible.
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 concise sentence with no redundancy or filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool with five parameters, so it earns a high but not perfect score for 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain update semantics, error behavior, required parameters beyond what the schema lists, or how the tool relates to sibling tools. An agent would need to infer critical behavior from the tool name and schema alone.
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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles this dimension adequately.
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 ('Update') and the resource ('an existing project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project, add_project, and delete_project. However, it does not specify which project properties can be updated or any scoping details, so it is clear but not maximally specific.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus add_project for creation, get_project for retrieval, or update_suite for other resource types. The word 'existing' weakly implies the project must already exist, but that is not explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.