Rename or move a file within your Godot project by specifying the current and new relative paths.
Rename or move a file within the project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newPath | Yes | New file path (relative to project) | |
| filePath | Yes | Current file path (relative to project) | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a mutating file operation, but it does not disclose what happens if newPath already exists, whether directories are created, whether project references are updated, or what the result/error behavior is.
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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the operation and its scope. There is no filler or redundant repetition of parameter names.
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 tool is simple and all parameters are documented, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral gaps such as overwrite semantics and return values. It is minimally adequate for selecting the tool, but not fully complete for predicting the outcome of the 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 all three parameters clearly. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 verb and resource: 'Rename or move a file within the project.' It clearly identifies the operation and scope, and it is readily distinguishable from sibling tools such as delete_file, write_file, and read_file.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The phrase 'within the project' is a scope constraint, but it does not help the agent decide between rename_file and related file operations such as write_file or create_directory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.