creatives_rename_folderRename a creative folder owned by the authenticated tenant. New name must be unique within the same parent.
NOTE: updated_at on the returned row = "row last touched", NOT "content changed".
REQUIRED: folder_id (str — UUID), name (str — new name). EXAMPLE: creatives_rename_folder({"folder_id": "", "name": "Hero videos v2"})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| folder_id | Yes | ||
| connection_context | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / connection_contextAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: tenant ownership scoping, uniqueness constraint, and a note clarifying that updated_at means row last touched rather than content changed. It omits why the rename is destructive, but the annotation covers that warning.
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 front-loaded with purpose and constraint, then uses compact NOTE/REQUIRED/EXAMPLE sections. Every sentence adds actionable information given the 0% schema coverage, with no filler.
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 no-output-schema tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: it fails to document connection_context and gives only a partial hint about return values (updated_at semantics). It covers the core rename behavior and prerequisites but leaves notable gaps for an agent.
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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It documents the two required parameters with type and UUID format for folder_id and clarifies name is the new name, but it completely omits the third parameter connection_context.
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 'rename' and resource 'creative folder', and scopes it to folders owned by the authenticated tenant. Distinguishes from siblings like creatives_create_folder, creatives_delete_folder, and creatives_list_folders by its unique action.
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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the rename action is self-evident and there is no sibling rename tool. It provides a usage prerequisite (name uniqueness within the same parent) but no routing guidance.
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.