Rename or move an image file in the images tree by providing the current path and the desired new path. Organize or relocate storefront images with this command.
Rename or move a file of the images tree: path is what it is called now, new_path what it becomes - the same folder with a new name renames, another folder 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 full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral nuance: the same folder with a new name renames, while another folder with the same name moves. However, it does not address overwrite behavior, permissions, or failure conditions, and the mutation is only implied by the verb rather than explicitly flagged as a write operation.
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 single sentence is tight and front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parameter mapping follows naturally. Every clause adds information; no filler or redundancy.
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 tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and the surprising rename-vs-move behavior. Minor gaps such as path format, collision handling, and return value keep it from being fully complete, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.
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%, but the description defines both parameters: path is 'what it is called now' and new_path is 'what it becomes'. The additional rename-vs-move clarification gives meaning beyond the bare string 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?
The description states a specific action 'Rename or move' applied to 'a file of the images tree', clearly distinguishing from sibling directory tools like engine_image_dir_rename. It also explains the role of both parameters immediately, so the tool's intent is unambiguous.
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 implies when to use the tool – to rename or move an image file – but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as engine_image_dir_rename or engine_image_add. There is no when-not-to-use or exclusionary guidance; the agent must infer the boundary from the word 'file' and the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.