Update an existing nana800 automation project's properties, including its name and slug, by specifying the project ID to keep project settings current.
Update an existing project properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | The unique ID of the project to update (uses MCP_PROJECT_ID env if not provided) | |
| project_name | No | New name for the project | |
| project_slug | No | New slug for the project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost nothing. It does not disclose whether this is a partial/patch update (all three params are optional, which is significant and undocumented), whether omitted fields are preserved, what permissions are required, or whether the change is 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise. But the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than being earned — the sentence is too thin to be useful and is not even grammatically clean.
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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover patch semantics and any permission or side-effect context. Instead it leaves the agent to reconstruct behavior from an all-optional schema, which is a material gap for a write operation.
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 100% and each parameter is documented in-schema, including the MCP_PROJECT_ID fallback for project_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — notably it never explains the all-optional patch semantics implied by required: [].
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 verb ("Update") and resource ("an existing project") with a properties qualifier, so the basic intent is inferable and it is clearly distinct from project_create and project_delete. However, "properties" is left generic and the sentence is grammatically awkward ("project properties"), giving no hint that the updatable fields are name and slug without opening the schema.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as project_get, project_create, or project_delete, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the mutation path for an already-existing project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.