oneguard_vault_renameRename an existing vault while keeping all secrets, links, and IDs intact. Only the display name changes, preserving security and references.
Renames an existing vault. Secrets, links and ids are unaffected — only the display name changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The new vault name. | |
| vault | Yes | Vault id or its 8-character prefix. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds specific behavioral context: secrets, links, and ids remain unchanged, so callers know the operation is safe and scoped. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.
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 short sentences, no filler. The core action is stated first, and the most important side-effect clarification follows immediately. Everything present 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 two-parameter rename operation with no output schema and no nested structures, the description fully covers what the tool does and what side effects to expect. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.
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 vault and name clearly documented in the input schema. The tool description doesn't add extra parameter meaning, but the schema already carries the needed semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Renames') with a clear resource ('an existing vault') and clarifies the exact scope: only the display name changes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oneguard_vault_list or oneguard_vault_add without needing to inspect schemas.
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 phrase 'existing vault' implies this tool is for updating an already-created vault, not creating one, but no explicit guidance compares it to vault_add/vault_list or states when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.