Modify a GitHub project view's name or layout to organize tasks and workflows effectively.
Update a view in a GitHub project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| viewId | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| layout | 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 this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse 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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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 has 0% description coverage, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'projectId', 'viewId', 'name', or 'layout' mean, their formats, or how they interact. It doesn't even mention that 'layout' has enum values, leaving the agent to rely solely on the raw 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 action ('Update') and resource ('a view in a GitHub project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'update_project_field', which also modify GitHub project elements, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing view), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_project_view' or 'update_project', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.