coda_update_folderRename a Coda folder by specifying its folder ID and new name; returns updated folder metadata.
Update a folder's name.
Renames the specified folder. Returns the updated folder metadata. This is an idempotent operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name for the folder | |
| folder_id | Yes | The folder ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.4.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so 'This is an idempotent operation' is a pure restatement of structured data and earns no credit. The genuinely additive piece is 'Returns the updated folder metadata', which matters because no output schema exists. It still omits permission requirements and what happens when name is null (the schema's default), which is a real behavioral gap for a mutation.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and with zero filler. 'Update a folder's name' and 'Renames the specified folder' are near-duplicates, which is the only wasted 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?
For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description does cover the action, the return value, and the idempotency trait. However it never addresses the nullable 'name' parameter (default null), permission/authorization needs, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking a write 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% and both parameters are documented in the schema ('New name for the folder', 'The folder ID to update'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful implication that name is the only mutable field, but does not clarify that name is optional/nullable or what a null value does.
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 and resource ('Update a folder's name', 'Renames the specified folder'), and the phrase 'a folder's name' usefully narrows the scope to renaming only. It does not reference any sibling (coda_get_folder, coda_delete_folder, coda_create_folder), so an agent gets no help distinguishing this from adjacent folder tools beyond the verb itself.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing the folder to exist), and no note on what happens if the folder is not found. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.