Add a project to an initiative by providing both IDs to link them. This organizes related work under a common initiative.
Add a project to an initiative
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The ID of the project to add | |
| initiativeId | Yes | The ID of the initiative |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not describe any side effects, authorization needs, or other behavioral traits beyond what is already structured.
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 sentence without any superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about prerequisites or effects. It does not explain what 'add' entails (e.g., linking an existing project) or usage constraints.
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 100%, with both parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 'Add a project to an initiative' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'removeProjectFromInitiative' and 'getInitiativeProjects'. It leaves no ambiguity about the action.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the initiative and project must already exist) or context to help the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.