Rename a tag across all bookmarks or limit the change to a specific collection, updating every reference at once.
Rename a tag across all or a specific collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newTag | Yes | New tag name | |
| oldTag | Yes | Current tag name | |
| collectionId | No | Optional collection ID to limit scope |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation can affect all collections by default, but it does not state whether the rename is destructive, reversible, or what happens if newTag already exists. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. The key verb and scope appear immediately, making it easy to parse and remember.
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 tool that can rename tags globally, the absence of annotations and output schema makes the description incomplete. It omits important operational context such as default scope behavior, potential overwriting or merging semantics, and return value expectations. An agent would need additional documentation to use it safely.
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 all parameters are clearly documented in the schema. The description adds slight context by clarifying the 'all or specific collection' behavior, but it does not provide meaningful new semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Rename a tag') and clearly defines the operational scope ('across all or a specific collection'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like merge_tags, but the scope detail helps differentiate the action from other tag operations.
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?
The description implies the primary use case: renaming a tag globally or within one collection. However, it gives no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it relates to merge_tags and delete_tags, leaving alternatives unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.