Update a TickTick project's name, color, view mode, kind, or close it by providing its project ID.
Updates a project's name, color, view mode or kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Project kind | |
| name | No | Project name | |
| color | No | Hex color | |
| closed | No | Close the project | |
| viewMode | No | View mode | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id | |
| sortOrder | No | Sort order |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says only 'Updates'. It does not disclose whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to fields omitted from the request, that closing a project is a state change, or whether the operation is reversible. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant omission.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is the more forgivable failure for conciseness.
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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the 'closed' flag (a state-changing operation), sortOrder, and any statement of partial-update semantics or required projectId. An agent can call it, but not confidently predict its behavior.
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 100% with all seven parameters documented in the schema (including enum values for kind and viewMode), so the baseline is 3. The description names four of the seven fields, adding nothing the schema does not already state, and silently omits 'closed' and 'sortOrder'.
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?
States a specific verb (Updates) and resource (a project) and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from delete_project or create_project. It does not, however, mention the sibling update_task or note how this differs from other project mutations, and it omits several schema fields (closed, sortOrder, projectId).
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus delete_project, get_project, or list_projects, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the project must exist. The only implied usage is 'when you want to change a project field', which is bare minimum inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.