Update any project by submitting only the fields to change. Use status 'archived' to soft-delete a project.
Update a project. Pass only the fields you want to change. Set status to "archived" to soft-delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Project ID | |
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, with idempotency. The description adds value by disclosing the soft-delete behavior (setting status to 'archived') and the partial update semantics, which go beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.
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 comprised of two concise and front-loaded sentences, delivering key information without extraneous content. Every sentence adds value: the first states the primary action and partial update, the second explains the soft-delete use of the 'status' parameter.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, partial update, soft-delete) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects. It is missing details about response format, error handling, or authentication, but the provided information is sufficient for basic correct usage.
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 low (20%), with only 'id' described. The description provides high-level guidance on partial updates and the effect of the 'status' parameter (soft-delete), but it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'name', 'description', or 'tags'. This partially compensates but insufficiently addresses the low coverage.
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 states 'Update a project' as the primary action, distinguishing it from creation or listing tools. It also specifies the partial update behavior and the special effect of setting status to 'archived' for soft-deletion, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 advises to 'Pass only the fields you want to change,' implying partial updates, and explains soft-delete via status. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_create (for new projects) or other sibling tools, and does not mention prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.