rename_folderRename a saved RuralCheck folder by folder ID and a new name to keep saved plots, reports, and listings organized.
Rename a folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The folder's name. | |
| folder_id | Yes | A folder id from list_folders. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of permission requirements, whether renaming affects children or paths, or collision behavior when the name is taken.
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?
It is a single short sentence with zero waste and information front-loaded, but it is concise to the point of under-specification — the sentence only repeats the name rather than earning its place with any new information.
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 both params are fully documented with annotations covering safety, so little is strictly required. However, for a rename operation an agent would benefit from knowing name-collision handling and whether the change propagates, and none of that is present.
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 both parameters are self-documented, including that folder_id comes from list_folders and that name is 1-60 characters. The description contributes no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Rename a folder." restates the tool name and title verbatim without adding scope, constraints, or differentiation. It does convey the verb+resource, but it is the definition of a tautological restatement per the rubric.
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 indication of when to use this versus siblings like create_folder, delete_folder, or list_folders, nor any preconditions (e.g., folder must exist, name uniqueness within parent). Usage is only inferable from the name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.