Update a project's name, location, status, or start and end dates to modify existing project details.
Update a project (name, location, status, dates)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name | |
| status | No | Status | |
| end_date | No | End date (ISO) | |
| location | No | New location | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID | |
| start_date | No | Start date (ISO) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., partial update semantics, whether missing fields retain their values, or return 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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word adds value, making it highly concise.
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?
Despite comprehensive schema coverage, the description omits important usage context such as whether only provided fields are updated, how it behaves relative to create_project, and what the tool returns (no output schema). Annotations help but do not fully compensate for the lack of behavioral guidance in a mutation 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 input schema has 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all six parameters. The description lists a subset of these fields but does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as updating a project and lists the updatable fields (name, location, status, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update_task or update_event by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_project.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing project), nor does it differentiate from create_project or delete_project. The usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.