Rename a section inside a channel category by providing workspace, channel, category, and section IDs along with the new name.
Rename a section inside a channel category.
workspace_id: target workspace ID — get available IDs from list_workspaces()
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| channel_id | Yes | ||
| section_id | Yes | ||
| category_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, and the description confirms it is a renaming operation. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permission requirements, or failure conditions beyond what the annotations imply.
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 extremely concise, with no unnecessary words. It states the purpose and provides a helpful tip for one parameter in a single short sentence.
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?
The description is minimal but sufficient given the sibling tools (create_section, delete_section, etc.) provide context for the resource hierarchy. It does not mention return values or error cases, though an output schema is noted as present elsewhere.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage and the description only explains workspace_id. The meanings of channel_id, category_id, section_id, and name are not described, leaving the agent to infer them from context.
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 clearly states the action ('Rename') and the resource ('a section inside a channel category'), which distinguishes it from other update tools. It could be slightly more specific about the hierarchical context, but it is effective.
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?
Provides guidance for the workspace_id parameter by pointing to list_workspaces(), but does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like create_section or delete_section, nor does it explain the overall rename workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.