Rename a saved site's internal Studio/Home name without affecting its SEO or public title settings, ensuring clear identification for management.
Rename a saved site's internal Studio/Home name. This does not change its SEO or public title settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | New non-empty internal site name (trimmed before saving). | |
| siteId | Yes | Authoritative site ID from swebsy_list_sites. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the side-effect boundary (internal name only, not public settings), which is useful, but it does not mention reversibility, required permissions, or what happens to existing references.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the clarifying exclusion follows immediately, making it easy to parse.
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 with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral boundary and the schema covers parameters. The only minor gap is lack of detail about return values or failure modes, but this is not critical for such a straightforward operation.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Rename a saved site's internal Studio/Home name') and explicitly scopes what it does not affect (SEO/public title settings). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like swebsy_update_settings.
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?
It gives clear context by stating the rename does not change SEO or public title settings, implying that swebsy_update_settings would be used for those. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' statement but provides enough guidance for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.