mendeley_rename_folderRename an existing folder in your reference library by providing its folder ID and new name, then return the updated folder state.
Rename an existing folder and return its updated state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| folder_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait ('return its updated state'), which goes beyond the bare action. However, it does not mention side effects on associated documents, whether the operation is reversible, or any permissions required. For a simple rename, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 one short, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about returning the updated state is appended cleanly. Every word 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 tool, the description covers the basic operation and return value. However, without annotations or parameter descriptions, it leaves gaps around validation, failure modes, and side effects. An output schema exists, but its contents are not visible to the agent, so this minimal description only partially satisfies what a caller needs to know.
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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explicitly describe what 'folder_id' and 'name' mean beyond what the schema titles provide. 'Rename an existing folder' weakly implies that folder_id identifies the folder and name is the new name, but no meaningful detail is added for either parameter.
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 ('Rename') and resource ('existing folder'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings (create, delete, list folders). The added 'return its updated state' clarifies the result. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 implies the use case: when an existing folder needs to be renamed. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it contrasts with sibling tools like create_folder or delete_folder. The uniqueness of the rename operation makes the usage context reasonably clear, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.