Rename a file or folder in a Dooray drive by specifying the drive ID, file ID, and new name.
Rename a file or folder in a Dooray drive.
Required:
driveId: The drive ID
fileId: File or folder ID to rename
name: New name
Example: { "driveId": "123", "fileId": "456", "name": "new-name.txt" }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New name | |
| fileId | Yes | File or folder ID | |
| driveId | Yes | Drive ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context at all — it doesn't say whether an existing same-named file is overwritten, whether the old name is recoverable, or what permissions are needed. For a destructive mutation, the only added content is an example payload, which is parameter illustration rather than behavior.
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 purpose sentence is correctly front-loaded, but the bulleted "Required" list duplicates the schema with zero added information and could be dropped entirely. The example earns its place; the parameter recap does not.
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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers inputs adequately, but it omits the consequences of a destructive rename (collision handling, reversibility) and says nothing about what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps given destructiveHint=true.
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%, and the description's "Required" block merely restates the schema descriptions verbatim ("driveId: The drive ID"). The JSON example adds marginal value by showing concrete string formats, but no new semantic detail such as name length limits or invalid-character rules.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Rename a file or folder in a Dooray drive"), which is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `update-drive-file`, which plausibly could also alter a name, so an agent cannot confidently choose between the two from the text alone.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than `update-drive-file`, `move-drive-file`, or `copy-drive-file`, and no prerequisites or permission context. The reader is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.