move_collectionMoves a Zotero collection under another collection or to the library root, letting you reorganize collection hierarchies.
Move a collection under another collection, or to the library root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| library_id | No | ||
| library_type | No | ||
| collection_id | Yes | ||
| parent_collection_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / library_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Library Id"
+}Input schema / properties / library_typeAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "user",
+ "group"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Library Type"
+}v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state without destroying data. The description adds only the root-move option; it does not disclose what happens if the target parent is a descendant of the moved collection, whether the move is reversible, or required permissions.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters rather than padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a 4-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no annotation detail about side effects, the description omits parameter mapping and edge-case behavior. It is not sufficient on its own for an agent to call this tool confidently in non-trivial cases.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly signals that the destination is controlled (move "under another collection, or to the library root"), but never mentions collection_id, parent_collection_id, library_id, or library_type by name, leaving half the parameters entirely undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Move a collection") and states both destination modes: under another collection or to the library root. It does not compare itself to siblings like rename_collection, add_to_collection, or delete_collection, but the action is unambiguous.
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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_to_collection or create_collection, and no prerequisites or permission notes. The only implicit guidance is that a root-level move is a valid target, derived from "or to the library root".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.