rename_documentChange the title of a SiYuan document using its ID or path. Use this to update the display name of notes in your notebook.
Change the title of a document. Accepts a document ID or a path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc | Yes | Document ID or path. | |
| title | Yes | New title. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the operation is a rename but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, whether renaming preserves the document identity, or failure behavior 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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence duplicates schema information rather than earning its place.
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?
A simple two-parameter mutation with fully documented params and no output schema, so little is strictly needed. It is adequate, but the absence of any behavioral or usage context leaves real gaps for an agent deciding how and when to invoke it.
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%, so the schema already documents both 'doc' and 'title'. The description's note that 'doc' accepts an ID or a path marginally reinforces the schema but adds no new syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3.
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+resource ('Change the title of a document'), which is immediately clear. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like move_document or update_block, which an agent might confuse with renaming.
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 on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only restates the operation, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.