Rename an image view to a new ID to prevent long XISF names from causing PixInsight processes to fail.
Rename an image view to a different view ID. Long XISF names can cause some PixInsight processes to fail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_id | Yes | New view ID (no spaces) | |
| old_id | Yes | Current view ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does 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 only states the action and a motivation for renaming, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, error conditions, or the return value. For a mutation tool, this is a notable omission.
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 extremely concise, with two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides useful context about the purpose of renaming. No extraneous words.
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 tool with only two string parameters, the description covers the core purpose and a reason to use it. However, without annotations, it lacks details about required preconditions (e.g., view must be open), potential failure modes, or what happens after renaming. It is minimally complete but not thorough.
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%, with both parameters already described ('Current view ID' and 'New view ID (no spaces)'). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond restating the renaming action, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the verb 'rename' and the resource 'image view', specifying the action as changing the view ID. No sibling tool appears to offer a rename operation, so it stands out on its own.
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 explains a specific context for using the tool: long XISF names can cause some PixInsight processes to fail, implying renaming might help avoid this. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving some usage decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.