Change an application folder's slug within a job-hunting campaign. Provide the campaign, current slug, and new slug to keep organized application records correctly named.
Rename an application folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | New application slug | |
| from | Yes | Current application slug | |
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Rename' implies a mutation, but the description fails to disclose whether the rename is reversible, what happens to references, whether permissions are required, or any side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise, so it falls short of a higher score.
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?
Given a mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain side effects, return behavior, or permission needs. It provides none of these, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke it confidently.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters (campaign, from, to). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (Rename) and resource (application folder), making the core action clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings such as rename_campaign or remove_application, leaving the agent to infer scope from the tool name 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It simply restates the operation, leaving the agent with no routing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.