Update an existing Redmine project's settings, including name, description, visibility, and custom fields, by specifying its ID and the fields to change.
Update project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bodyParams | Yes | ||
| pathParams | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false, implying a write operation, which the description 'Update' aligns with. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of side effects, partial vs. full updates, authorization requirements, or response details. With annotations covering the read-only distinction, the description still fails to disclose any additional behavioral traits.
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 extremely brief (two words) but not appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool with two required parameters, one being a nested object with many properties. This is under-specification, not conciseness—the minimal text does not convey necessary information and fails to front-load any useful details.
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 complex schema (nested objects, many optional fields), no output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description must carry significant explanatory weight. It provides none—no context about the nature of the update, how the project identifier works, or expected outcomes. This is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters. It does not mention pathParams (format, projectId) or bodyParams (project object with numerous fields). Since the schema gives no descriptions and the tool description is silent, an agent has no clue what each parameter means or how to construct valid values.
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 'Update project' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'updateProject' with a space. It adds no specificity about what can be updated or how it differs from related project actions like archiveProject, closeProject, or deleteProject. This is a tautology rather than a purposeful clarification.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createProject, archiveProject, or the various update tools for other resources. The description does not mention target audience, prerequisites, or circumstances that select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.