datalens_entries_renameRename a DataLens entry by entry ID while preserving its ID and all references. Use it to update an entry's display name without breaking links.
Give an entry another name; its id and what refers to it stay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The new name. | |
| entry_id | Yes | Entry id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety/idempotency is covered by structure. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it states the entry id and inbound references survive the rename, ruling out referential breakage an agent might otherwise worry about.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and appends the one non-obvious guarantee. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers what an agent needs. It could state permission requirements, but nothing essential is missing.
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% (both entry_id and name are documented inline), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning -- no id format, no name uniqueness or length constraints.
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?
Specific verb (rename) plus resource (DataLens entry) makes the operation unmistakable. No sibling offers renaming, so ambiguity is low, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other datalens_entries_* tools the way a 5 would.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you want to change an entry's display name. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. ownership/permission) statement, and no mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.