Renames an audience by ID with a new name, ensuring email contact lists stay accurate and organized.
Rename an audience (PATCH /audiences/:id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The audience id. | |
| name | Yes | The new audience name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a PATCH request, implying mutation, but does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a modification 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 front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the action and resource without any waste.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits information about the effect on existing audience attributes, potential errors, or the return value, leaving the agent without full context for correct invocation.
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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (id and name), and the description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema sufficiently documents the parameters.
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 resource ('audience') with an explicit endpoint (PATCH /audiences/:id). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like update_segment or get_audience by specifying the exact action and 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?
The description implies usage for renaming an audience but gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to prefer this over another tool or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the intended scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.