Rename a Microsoft Planner bucket by specifying its plan and bucket reference plus a new name. Use it to update bucket labels without recreating tasks.
Rename a bucket in a Planner plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| plan_ref | Yes | ||
| bucket_ref | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation nature is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the old name is freed, whether name collisions are rejected, whether tasks in the bucket are affected, or that the change is visible plan-wide.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication; nothing beyond the bare action is conveyed.
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 mutating tool with three undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent can call it, but cannot confidently resolve what the refs should be or what the effect of the rename will be.
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 carries the full burden — yet it explains none of the three required parameters. It's unclear whether plan_ref and bucket_ref are IDs, names, or opaque tokens, or whether new_name accepts arbitrary strings; only 'new_name' is loosely implied by the tool name.
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 (a bucket within a Planner plan), which distinguishes it from planner_rename_plan and todo_rename_list by target object. Clear and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.
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 on when to use this versus planner_rename_plan or the todo equivalents, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., does the bucket need to exist, are permissions or a plan owner required?). The agent must infer all usage context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.