Renames a PHP file to a new path while preserving its type: modules remain modules and root scripts remain root scripts.
Rename a php file: path is what it is called now, new_path what it becomes. Both stay of one kind - a module (units/...) stays a module, a root script a root script.
| 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 full responsibility. It discloses the kind-stays-same rule, but omits important behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., if path does not exist), whether new_path overwrites an existing file, or what the success criteria are.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, then parameters are clarified, and the constraint is added last. Every word earns its place.
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 rename operation with no output schema, the description covers the core essentials: what it does, what parameters mean, and a key restriction. It lacks guidance on edge cases like overwrite behavior, but this is a minor gap for an operation of this simplicity.
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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains both parameters precisely: 'path' is the current name and 'new_path' is the target name. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb (rename) and resource (php file), and explains the role of each parameter. The mention of 'php' clearly differentiates it from other rename tools in the sibling list (html, static, etc.).
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?
Provides an explicit constraint: the file kind (module vs root script) must stay the same, which guides when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool name itself makes the file type unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.