update_media_folderRename a media folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Folder ID (from list_media_folders) | |
| name | Yes | New folder name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The folder as renamed — id and name. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The folder as renamed — id and name.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no extra behavioral detail, such as whether folder contents or IDs remain unaffected by the rename, so transparency is adequate but minimal.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple rename operation.
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 two-parameter rename tool with fully described parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is the absence of any note on post-rename semantics (e.g., uniqueness or impact on references), but this is minor for this simple operation.
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 fully documents both parameters: id is described as coming from list_media_folders, and name is described as the new folder name. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, meeting the baseline.
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 states a specific verb ('Rename') and a specific resource ('a media folder'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like rename_media_file, create_media_folder, and delete_media_folder by naming the target resource.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the action phrase; the description adds no decision context beyond the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.