Updates the evidence-based project map with purpose, components, flow, boundaries, and unknowns, marking unknowns as unknown for design checkpoints.
VibeWise: update the evidence-based project map (purpose, components, flow, boundaries, unknowns). Mark unknowns as unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purpose | No | ||
| mainFlow | No | ||
| unknowns | No | ||
| components | No | ||
| projectPath | No | ||
| requirements | No | ||
| dataBoundaries | No | ||
| buildDeployment | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It never states whether the update replaces or merges the existing map, what happens to omitted sections, whether changes are persisted/versioned, or whether confirmation is required.
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 naming the tool family, the action, and the affected fields with no filler. The trailing 'Mark unknowns as unknown' is terse but earns its place as an instruction.
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 an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent unable to know what a successful call returns or how partial updates are handled.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names five of the eight parameters by concept (purpose, components, flow, boundaries, unknowns) but omits projectPath, requirements, and buildDeployment, and gives no format or merge semantics for any of them.
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 ('update') and resource ('project map') and enumerates the sections it covers (purpose, components, flow, boundaries, unknowns). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like vibe_checkpoint or vibe_report, but the verb+resource pairing is 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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus other map/notes tools such as vibe_read_notes or vibe_checkpoint, nor any prerequisites or ordering. The only instruction present ('Mark unknowns as unknown') is a data convention, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.