Change a project's collaboration mode for team access. Returns false if team permissions do not allow modification.
dmt_Project.modifyProjectCollaborationMode(projectUuid: string, collaborationMode: EDMT_ProjectCollaborationMode) -> boolean
修改工程协作模式
remarks: 如若团队权限无需工程设置协作模式，则将返回 false
returns: 是否修改成功
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 按官方签名顺序排列的JSON参数数组 | |
| windowId | No | 目标EDA窗口ID；省略时使用当前活动窗口 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a specific edge case (returns false when team permissions don't require setting collaboration mode) and states the return type, but it omits crucial details like side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, and what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.
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 concise and structured with a signature, a short Chinese description, remarks, and return semantics. However, it is somewhat cryptic, mixing code and natural language, and may be unclear to non-Chinese readers. It earns its place but lacks explanatory depth.
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 it's a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the possible values of collaborationMode, any prerequisites (e.g., project existence, user permissions), error handling, or side effects. An agent would need to make assumptions about these critical aspects.
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 description includes the function signature with parameter names and types (projectUuid: string, collaborationMode: EDMT_ProjectCollaborationMode) and specifies the return type. This adds meaningful information beyond the schema, which only describes an opaque args array. It clarifies the expected order and types of the parameters, which is valuable for correct invocation.
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: modify the collaboration mode of a project. It names the specific resource (project collaboration mode) and the verb (modify), distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify other attributes like description or name. The purpose is unambiguous.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, when the tool is applicable, or when it should be avoided. The description is purely declarative and offers no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.