Rename a Reminders list by specifying its exact current name and a new unique name. Use dry run to preview changes without modifying anything.
Rename a Reminders list. The old name must match exactly one list, and the new name must not already be in use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything | |
| newName | Yes | New name for the list | |
| oldName | Yes | Exact current name of the list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the mutation and its name-matching constraints, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or the dryRun option, leaving notable gaps for a write operation.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted language. The operation is front-loaded, and the preconditions follow immediately.
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 simple rename tool with a fully described schema, the description covers the key invocation constraints. Because annotations are absent, it could do more to disclose safety and side-effect behavior, but the schema already documents dryRun and the core parameters.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic constraints beyond the schema: oldName must match exactly one list, and newName must not already be in use.
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 and resource: 'Rename a Reminders list.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools such as create_reminder_list, delete_reminder_list, and list_reminder_lists.
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 gives clear preconditions: the old name must match exactly one list and the new name must not already be in use. It does not explicitly compare this tool against alternatives, but the usage context is clear for a rename operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.