Modify an epic's name, status, priority, or description in a project tracker using its UUID to keep hierarchical project data accurate and current.
Update epic information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name for the epic | |
| status | No | New status for the epic | |
| epic_id | Yes | UUID of the epic to update | |
| priority | No | New priority for the epic | |
| description | No | New description for the epic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved, required permissions, or reversibility, leaving the agent with only the bare implication that this mutates an epic.
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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It fails to earn its place by conveying any information beyond the tool name.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain partial-update behavior, the required epic_id, and return semantics. It leaves these gaps unaddressed, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the enums for status and priority. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Update epic information'), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not specify what aspects are updatable or how it differs from sibling update tools like update_issue or update_story. The schema lists fields, but the description itself is vague about scope.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent receives no signal about when to prefer update_epic over create_epic, delete_epic, or other update_* tools, nor about partial-update semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.