Change a Seafile library's name to a new value. Provide the library identifier or current name along with the new name and authentication tokens to update it.
Rename a library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| repo_id | No | ||
| library_name | No | ||
| account_token | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'rename' but doesn't mention whether this is destructive, whether tokens are required, what happens to the old name, or any other behavioral traits.
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 very short, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits almost all necessary information and doesn't earn its single sentence beyond restating the name.
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 mutation tool with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence restatement is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to call it correctly.
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 0% and the description doesn't explain any of the five parameters. It's unclear whether name or library_name holds the new name, and repo_id, account_token, and session_token are entirely unexplained.
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 'Rename a library.' is a direct restatement of the tool name rename_library; it adds no new information about scope, what a library is, or how this differs from rename_item. It qualifies as tautology rather than a clarifying statement.
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 information about when to use this tool versus rename_item, create_library, or other siblings. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.