rename_bumperChange the name of a library asset, including removed items, without re-rendering content. Returns the id, new name, and previous name.
Rename one of your library items (removed ones too). Only the label changes; nothing re-renders. Returns { id, name, previousName }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New name (1-120 chars) | |
| assetId | Yes | Library asset id (from list_bumpers) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true, so the description adds real value: 'Only the label changes; nothing re-renders' sets expectations about side effects, and the return shape is disclosed. It still omits permission/auth requirements and what happens if the asset doesn't exist.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the side-effect caveat and return shape following. Every sentence 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 mutation with an idempotency annotation, the description covers purpose, side effects, and return shape. Output schema is absent but the return fields are given inline, leaving little of consequence missing.
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 assetId and name documented including length bounds. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb (rename) and resource (library item / bumper), and the title clarifies 'bumper' means intro/outro. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_bumper or remove_bumper, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 parenthetical '(removed ones too)' implies you may rename a removed item without restoring it first, which is a useful usage hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., restore_bumper) is referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.