Renames a Riddle with the specified UUID. Returns only the confirmation of the change (uuid, title, modified state), not the entire Riddle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| UUID | Yes | The UUID of the Riddle you want to rename | |
| title | Yes | The new title for the Riddle |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states the return behavior (only confirmation, not full Riddle), which adds context beyond the sparse annotations (only idempotentHint=false). However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or irreversible changes, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.
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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information about the return value. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple rename operation with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the primary behavior and return format. It does not mention error handling or constraints, but given the low complexity, it is adequately complete.
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 already includes clear descriptions for both UUID and title, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With schema coverage at 100%, 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 clearly states the action: 'Renames a Riddle with the specified UUID.' It also specifies the scope of the return value, distinguishing it from other riddle-related tools that might fetch or delete. The verb+resource is specific and 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?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when renaming a Riddle) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, so usage guidance is minimal.
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.
Tools are largely distinct by name and detailed descriptions, with clear prefixes (riddle_builder_*, questionBank_*, stats_*). Some potential confusion exists among the stats tools (stats_fetch vs stats_overview_fetch vs breakdowns) but descriptions clarify their different scopes. Overall, an agent can usually pick the right tool.
Naming follows a predictable prefix+verb pattern within each domain (e.g., riddle_builder_quiz, riddle_builder_poll; riddle_get, riddle_publish). Minor inconsistencies exist, like the camelCase 'questionBank' and 'riddleTemplate' prefixes vs snake_case elsewhere, and 'stats_overview_fetch' ordering, but these are not chaotic and remain readable.
With 62 tools, this far exceeds the recommended 3-15 range and even the 25+ threshold. While the server covers a broad domain, the extreme number overwhelms and makes tool selection harder, fitting the 'extreme mismatch' criterion for 50+ tools.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering creation, reading, updating, deleting, publishing, unpublishing, moving, tagging, template management, question banks, palettes, and various stats breakdowns. There are no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of managing interactive content, and all apparent operations are supported.