profiles_renameRename an agent profile to change its human-readable name, scoped to a specific organization and project.
Rename agent profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable name. Spaces and punctuation are allowed; leading or trailing whitespace and invisible or control characters are not. | |
| orgID | Yes | ||
| projectID | Yes | ||
| agentProfileID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description contributes nothing further — no statement of why a rename is flagged destructive, what prior name is lost, or what permissions/scoping the orgID and projectID require.
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?
Four words with no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded scope, target, or effect statement to earn the space it omits.
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?
A mutation tool with four required parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema needs real description effort. The one-line restatement leaves an agent with nothing about required scoping, naming constraints beyond the schema, or the effect of the operation.
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 only 25%: just the 'name' parameter is documented, and only for allowed characters. The three ID parameters (agentProfileID, orgID, projectID) have patterns but no prose, and the description does not compensate by explaining which identifiers are needed or how the profile is located.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as profiles_update, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the narrow path for changing an existing profile's display name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.