Edit a Yandex Tracker component's name, description, owner, or default assignee using its current version. Keep component details accurate without creating a new component.
Edit a component: name, description, owner, default assignee. version = component version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead | No | Owner login | |
| name | No | ||
| version | Yes | Current component version | |
| assignAuto | No | ||
| componentId | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so safety is partly covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, whether the version must match the current one to succeed, or what permissions are required. Only "version = component version" hints at concurrency 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, dense sentences with the action front-loaded and zero filler. The field enumeration is efficient rather than padded, though the version clause is slightly cryptic in phrasing.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, 33% schema coverage, and no annotations beyond a basic safety profile, the description is thin. It omits the identity parameter's meaning, version-mismatch behavior, and the effect on unspecified fields, which an agent needs to call this correctly.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: "owner" maps to the ambiguous `lead` param and "default assignee" maps to `assignAuto`, and "version = component version" clarifies `version`. However, `componentId` is unexplained and the description adds no format or constraint detail for the rest.
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+resource ("Edit a component") and enumerates the editable fields (name, description, owner, default assignee), so the agent knows exactly what surface this tool touches. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like create_component or get_component, but the verb makes the distinction inferable.
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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the component must already exist), and no mention of alternatives to update_component. The agent is left to 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.