rename_tagRename a tag across every item in a Zotero library by supplying the current and new tag names, so your tags stay consistent after a naming change.
Rename a tag across all items in the Zotero library.
Args: old_name: The current tag name new_name: The new tag name to replace it with
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_name | Yes | ||
| old_name | Yes | ||
| library_id | No | ||
| library_type | 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. The description usefully adds that the rename is applied library-wide (a mass mutation), but it discloses nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens to items carrying the old tag. There is also mild tension between a library-wide rename and destructiveHint=false.
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 one-line summary is front-loaded and short, but the 'Args:' block is boilerplate that merely echoes the schema property titles rather than adding meaning, so part of the text does not earn its place.
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 4-parameter bulk-mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotation guidance on side effects, the description is thin: it omits the library-targeting parameters and any consequences of a library-wide rename. An output schema exists, so return values correctly need not be explained, but the input-side gaps remain.
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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the schema titles for old_name and new_name ('The current tag name' / 'The new tag name'). The library_id and library_type parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving ambiguity about which library is targeted despite the phrase 'the Zotero library'.
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 ('Rename') and resource ('tag') plus scope ('across all items in the Zotero library'), which distinguishes it from rename_collection and the add/remove/delete tag siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling it should be preferred over.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'across all items in the Zotero library' hints at bulk scope, but there is no statement of when to use this versus delete_tags/add_tags or any prerequisite such as needing the tag to already exist. An agent must infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.