Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description usefully narrows that scope, explaining that only the displayed label changes while the code and its rollups stay intact. It also discloses the reversal mechanism ('the same tool puts the previous label back'), which aligns with idempotentHint. Real behavioral context is added beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence contributes distinct information: what changes, what is preserved, and how it is undone. No filler.

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 not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers mutation scope and reversibility well; the only gap is the absence of any guidance distinguishing this from related mutation tools.

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%, so both parameters (code and label) are already documented in the schema, including an example code. The description mentions 'one code' and 'the label' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Change the label of one code in the household's chart of accounts.' The scope is narrow and unambiguous, and the follow-up sentences ('the code and what rolls up to it are unchanged') further delineate this tool from the read-only chart_of_accounts or the sibling remap_category mutation.

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?

Provides useful context about what the operation does not affect and notes that the same tool reverts the change, which implicitly signals safe/undoable usage. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus a sibling like remap_category, leaving the routing decision to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.