Update a queue version's name, description, start date, and due date in Yandex Tracker by providing the version ID.
Edit a queue version: name, description, dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| dueDate | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| startDate | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| versionId | 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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: it does not say whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, what permissions are needed, or that versionId is required. For a mutation tool, this is thin.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource precedes the field list. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
Five parameters at 40% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond the safety hints — the description should carry more, yet it omits the required versionId, update semantics, and any behavioral caveats.
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 coverage is 40% (only the two date formats are documented in the schema). The description names name, description, and dates, loosely mapping to four of the five parameters, but it omits versionId entirely — the one required parameter — and gives no format or optionality detail.
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 (Edit) and resource (queue version) plus the editable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from create_queue_version, get_queue_version, and delete_queue_version. It lacks any explicit sibling differentiation, but the verb alone makes the intent 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus create_queue_version or delete_queue_version, no prerequisites (e.g. that the version must already exist), and no mention of whether this is a partial or full replacement edit. Usage is only implied by the word 'Edit'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.