dida365_update_projectUpdate an existing Dida365/TickTick project by modifying only the fields you provide—name, color, view mode, kind, or sort order—without affecting other project details.
Update a project. Only provided fields are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| view_mode | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| sort_order | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the partial-update semantics ("Only provided fields are changed"), which tells the agent unspecified fields are preserved rather than cleared. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or invalid project_id 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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the partial-update rule immediately after. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a six-parameter update tool with zero schema coverage and no enums, the description leaves the agent without any field-level meaning or usage context; it is far too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 0%, so none of the six parameters (kind, name, color, view_mode, sort_order, project_id) are documented anywhere. The sentence about only-provided-fields being changed hints at the nullable/default semantics visible in the schema, but it names no field or its accepted values, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
"Update a project" states a clear verb and resource, so the basic intent is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from sibling mutation tools such as dida365_update_task or dida365_create_project beyond the noun. It is minimum viable rather than specific.
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 tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (the project must already exist), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.