Rename an images folder or move it to another parent by providing the current and new paths.
Rename or move an images folder: the same parent with a new name renames, another parent with the same name moves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| new_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does explain the key nuance of rename vs move based on path relationship. However, it omits side effects, conflict/overwrite behavior, prerequisites, permissions, and return information, so transparency is only partial.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and then explains the two behavioral cases efficiently. There is no wasted wording, and the structure makes the conditional rule easy to parse.
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 simple two-parameter rename/move tool, this is serviceable, but it leaves important invocation details unstated, such as whether the source must exist and whether the target parent must already exist. Without annotations or an output schema, more edge-case context would improve agent confidence.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by showing how path and new_path interact, implying path is the source folder and new_path is the target. It still does not define path formats, required existence, or handling when both the parent and name change.
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 operation ('rename or move') applied to a specific resource ('images folder'), and clarifies the distinguishing rename-vs-move behavior based on parent path. This makes it easy to separate from sibling tools like engine_static_dir_rename or engine_image_rename.
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?
It gives explicit guidance for how to achieve each outcome: keep the parent and change the name to rename, or keep the name and change the parent to move. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the conditional rule gives clear, practical usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.