octav_rename_bundleRename a cryptocurrency portfolio bundle by replacing its current name with a new unique, case-sensitive name; confirmation required.
Rename a bundle, replacing its current name. Names must be unique (case-sensitive). Requires confirm: true. Costs 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New bundle name, 1-255 characters. | |
| confirm | No | Must be true. Confirms replacing the current name. | |
| bundleId | Yes | Bundle id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new facts: case-sensitive name uniqueness and a 1-credit cost, which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. It does not say what happens when the name collides or whether the credit is spent on failure.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive effect front-loaded before the constraints and cost. Every sentence carries an independent fact.
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 3-param destructive mutation with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the two hidden costs (uniqueness, credits) an agent needs to call it safely. Only the failure mode on duplicate names is left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and the field descriptions already explain name length and the confirm semantics. The description adds the uniqueness rule (case-sensitive), which is a real constraint not expressible in the schema, but adds nothing for bundleId.
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 ('Rename a bundle') plus the exact effect ('replacing its current name'). Sibling tools split cleanly into bundle vs address-book variants, and the resource noun here makes the distinction immediate.
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 prerequisites ('Requires confirm: true', 'Costs 1 credit') give an agent operational conditions for invoking it. However, there is no guidance on when to rename vs create_bundle/delete_bundle, nor any exclusion or alternative path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.