Rename a volume to a new human-readable name using its volume ID and desired name.
Rename a volume (update its human-readable name). To change a volume's size use tenki_resize_volume instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New human-readable name for the volume. | |
| volume_id | Yes | The volume id to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that this is a mutating non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the clarification that it only affects the human-readable name. It does not disclose potential edge cases like name validation or uniqueness constraints, but for a simple rename the annotation coverage carries most of the burden.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the sibling alternative is placed second, maximizing scannability.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, two fully documented parameters, and annotations that cover the mutation/safety profile, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. No output schema means return values do not need explanation.
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 100%, with both volume_id and name already described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating that the name is human-readable, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 precise verb and resource: 'Rename a volume' with a parenthetical clarifying it updates the human-readable name. It explicitly distinguishes itself from tenki_resize_volume, making its scope immediately clear.
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?
It clearly states the tool's action (renaming) and explicitly tells the agent to use tenki_resize_volume instead when changing size. This gives concrete routing guidance between two closely related volume operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.