Modify GitHub project details like title, description, visibility, or status to keep project information current and aligned with development needs.
Update an existing GitHub project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| visibility | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation behavior.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 complexity of a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what fields can be updated (e.g., title, description, visibility, status) or their meanings. This leaves the 5 parameters undocumented beyond 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing GitHub project', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'update_milestone' beyond the resource type, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project' or other update tools. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing project ID, or context for when updates are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.