Rename a job-hunting campaign folder by specifying its current and new names to keep your job search organized.
Rename a campaign folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | New campaign name | |
| from | Yes | Current campaign name |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about whether the folder is moved, whether related applications/interviews reference the old name, whether the operation is reversible, or what errors occur on name collision.
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?
A single four-word phrase with zero padding and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: collision/error behavior, permission requirements, and whether renaming affects other artifacts that reference the campaign name.
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 100% and both 'from' and 'to' are documented as current/new campaign name, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the word 'folder', a marginal nuance beyond the schema.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Rename a campaign folder'), which is enough to distinguish it from most siblings like read_campaign_config or remove_campaign. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from rename_application, but the resource noun does most of that work.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or of what happens when the new name collides with an existing campaign. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.