update_projectChange a project's name or description to keep project details current. Provide the project ID and new values to update metadata.
Update a project's name and/or description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the mutating effect and does not mention authorization, idempotency, partial-update semantics, or side effects. The 'and/or' hint is useful but adds little beyond the schema.
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, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. The core behavior is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 update tool, the core operation is conveyed, and an output schema exists so return values do not need description-level explanation. However, with no annotations, the description omits behavioral details such as whether empty strings clear fields or leave them unchanged, and it offers no usage guidance.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'name' and 'description' are the updatable fields, but it does not explain the required 'id' parameter or the meaning of the default empty-string values.
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 ('Update'), a resource ('a project'), and the exact mutable fields ('name and/or description'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project, create_project, and delete_project.
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?
The intended usage is implied by the verb and resource, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project or get_project. No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.