Change the name of a file or folder in Naver Cloud MYBOX by specifying its resource ID and the new name (including extension).
파일/폴더 이름 변경
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 새로운 이름 (확장자 포함) | |
| resourceId | Yes | 이름을 변경할 파일/폴더 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about permissions, overwrite behavior, error cases, or side effects of renaming, which is critical for a mutation tool.
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 short phrase, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with two required parameters. It lacks any structure or supporting detail, making it insufficient rather than appropriately sized.
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 the simplicity of the tool, the schema covers parameters well, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is missing essential behavioral context (e.g., whether the rename is safe, how collisions are handled). It is not complete enough for an agent to call 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 explains both parameters in Korean. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the action itself, which is the baseline for high coverage.
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 clear verb (change name) and resource (file/folder), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not, however, differentiate from siblings like files_move, which could also alter a resource's name or path, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.