rename_category_toolRename an existing RSS or Atom feed category by its ID and assign a new name to keep feed organization clear.
Rename a category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New name | |
| category_id | Yes | Category ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / properties / category_id / minimumAdded value: +1v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Rename' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, whether renaming is reversible, how name collisions are handled, or any side effects on feeds assigned to the category.
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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is no structural content beyond a four-word restatement of the title.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are schema-documented. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description leaves the entire behavioral profile (permissions, reversibility, collision behavior) undisclosed, which is a substantial gap.
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%, with both category_id and name documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (it does not clarify name constraints or the ID's origin), but it is not required to.
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 category'), which is minimally informative, but it essentially restates the tool title and name verbatim. It does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like create_category_tool, delete_category_tool, or list_categories_tool.
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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling category tools, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the surrounding tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.