Modify a requirement's title, description, or priority while leaving unspecified fields unchanged, so you can correct or refine scope without overwriting other details.
Change a requirement's title, description or priority. Only the fields you pass are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful patch semantics ('only the fields you pass are changed'), which tells the agent omitted fields are preserved. It says nothing about permissions, whether the requirement must pre-exist, or what happens on an unknown id.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the mutation scope is front-loaded and the partial-update caveat immediately follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers intent and patch behavior but leaves error handling, permissions and return values unexplained. Adequate to call correctly, not adequate to anticipate outcomes.
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 the description must compensate and it does partially by enumerating the mutable fields (title, description, priority) and implying id is the target. It omits constraints the schema encodes but doesn't explain, such as title's 3-character minimum and the must/should/could/wont enum, and never states that id is required.
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?
Specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('a requirement') plus the exact editable fields (title, description, priority), which separates it from set_requirement_status and update_user_story. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to siblings like set_requirement_status or delete_requirement. 'Only the fields you pass are changed' describes update semantics rather than selection criteria, so routing must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.