rename_favoriteRename an Archicad favorite by specifying its current exact name and a new name. Returns the old and new names, and reports failure if the new name is already in use.
Renames a favorite. Output: {name, newName, renamed: true}. Fails when newName is already used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact favorite name (localized, as listed by get_favorites) | |
| newName | Yes | New name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value with the failure condition on duplicate names and the return shape, which is context beyond the annotations — though it doesn't explain what happens to the old name entry or whether collisions are case-sensitive.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by output and failure behavior. Every clause carries information and there is no padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's inline ({name, newName, renamed: true}) legitimately fills that gap, and the failure clause covers the main error path. Complete enough for a two-parameter mutation, short only of collision/matching edge cases.
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 both parameters are already documented (name is the exact localized favorite name; newName the replacement). The description adds no format, localization, or matching semantics 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?
States a specific verb (renames) and resource (favorite), and the sibling set (create_favorite, delete_favorite, apply_favorite, get_favorites) leaves no ambiguity about which operation this performs. An agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
The precondition 'Fails when newName is already used' is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., when to rename rather than delete-and-recreate). Usage is inferable from the name, which is the minimum viable bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.