Updates a template permission identified by permission ID for a project and template, supplying role and permissions in the body.
Update Template Perm. PUT /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}/perms/{perm_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| perm_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| template_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered structurally. The description adds only "PUT", which hints at full-replacement semantics, but never states what gets overwritten or whether omitted fields are cleared—the key behavioral question for a destructive PUT.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, so there is no padding. However, the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than density—each fragment is a stub rather than a fully earning sentence.
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 destructive, nested-body, four-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine the meaning of the body fields or the replacement semantics from this definition 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds little: "Supply API fields in body" and a note that JSON-encoded string fields must stay strings. It never explains the body's role_slug/permissions fields or the three path identifiers, leaving the nested required object undocumented across both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Update Template Perm") and names the PUT endpoint it maps to. It is clear what is being modified, though the abbreviation "Perm" and the absence of any reference to sibling operations (create/delete/get/list_template_permission) leave differentiation to inference.
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 guidance on when to use this versus create_template_permission, delete_template_permission, or update_template_description. The description also doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing permission ID or required permissions to perform the update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.