Modify a project's name or description in the QuantConnect algorithmic trading platform to keep project information current and organized.
Update a project's name or description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | No | List of errors with the API call. | |
| success | No | Indicate if the API request was successful. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description only indicates the update operation. Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that. No disclosure of side effects or authorization requirements.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. Every word is necessary.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it could mention that other fields are not updated.
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?
Input schema has high coverage with descriptions for each parameter (projectId, name, description). The tool description adds little beyond 'name or description', which is already clear from the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool updates a project's name or description. It differentiates from other update tools by specifying the resource (project) but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like update_backtest.
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 explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. Usage is implied by the resource name, but no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.