Rename a label or change its color (partial — only sent fields change).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Label ID | |
| name | No | New name (max 255 chars, unique per account) | |
| color | No | New badge color, or null to remove |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context (partial update: 'only sent fields change'), which is not captured by annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Verb ('Rename'/'change') and resource ('label') are front-loaded. Every word contributes to clarity.
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?
Output schema exists (though not shown, it is referenced), so return values are covered. For a simple tool with well-documented schema and annotations, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics without gaps.
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% for all 3 parameters (id, name, color). The description adds critical meaning beyond the schema by explaining the partial update behavior ('only sent fields change'), which clarifies that parameters are optional and fields not sent remain unchanged.
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?
Description clearly states the tool updates a label by renaming or changing its color, with the specific behavior 'partial — only sent fields change'. It uses a specific verb ('Rename'/'change') and resource ('label'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_label, delete_label, and other update tools.
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?
While not explicitly stating when to use alternatives, the description implies usage for modifying existing labels (rename/color change). Sibling tools (create_label, delete_label) are distinct, and no guidance on exclusions is needed given the simple scope. Context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly (e.g., create_assistant vs create_campaign). However, there is some overlap like get_outbound_assistants vs get_assistants and list_all_phone_numbers vs get_phone_numbers, causing minor ambiguity.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_document, delete_label, get_voices). Only minor deviations exist, such as generate_ai_reply and list_all_phone_numbers, but overall the pattern is maintained.
With 75 tools, the server is excessively large. Although the domain is broad (assistants, calls, messaging, etc.), the number of tools makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the correct one, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers CRUD operations for most resources, plus webhooks, AI replies, and reference data fetching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_conversation, no attach phone number to assistant), but the surface is largely comprehensive for the platform's purpose.
