Rename a Skylight device by specifying its device ID and the new name to assign.
Rename a Skylight device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device id (from skylight_list_devices). | |
| name | Yes | New device name. | |
| frameId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations; it only restates the rename action. Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not disclose any additional effects, such as whether the device must exist or how frameId affects the rename.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly communicates the core action and resource.
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?
The tool is simple and annotations cover the read/write and destructive profile, but the description omits usage context and the meaning of the optional frameId parameter. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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?
The description does not add meaning to the parameters; it never mentions id, name, or frameId. While the schema documents id and name, the optional frameId remains unexplained and the description does not compensate for this gap.
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 Skylight device.' It clearly identifies the operation and is distinguishable from the sibling tool skylight_rename_frame by the explicit 'device' resource.
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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as skylight_rename_frame or skylight_update_frame. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions provided in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.