Rename a tag across all notes to keep your knowledge base organized. Updates every note using the old tag and returns the count of changes.
Rename a tag across all notes.
Args: old_tag: Tag to rename new_tag: New tag name
Returns: Count of notes updated, or error dict if validation fails
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_tag | Yes | ||
| old_tag | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0v1.0.46v1.0.42Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the action and return value ('Count of notes updated, or error dict if validation fails'), but it omits important behavioral details such as what happens if the new tag already exists (merge, overwrite, or error), whether the operation is reversible, or if it affects archived notes. These gaps significantly limit transparency.
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 concise and well-structured with an Args and Returns section. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff. The format is easy to parse and directly usable.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks critical context: it does not specify behavior when the new tag exists, whether it renames in all note types, or any side effects. The sibling merge_tags exists but the description doesn't clarify the distinction, leaving the agent to guess.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations: ' to rename' and 'New tag name,' which add minimal meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it doesn't clarify formatting, validation rules, or edge cases like empty strings or tag collisions, so compensation is only partial.
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 clear action: 'Rename a tag across all notes.' This identifies the verb and resource specifically, and the scope ('across all notes') adds clarity. It is distinguishable from sibling merge_tags by the rename versus merge operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them, so it misses full differentiation.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_tags. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or which scenarios favor this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.