assign_label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'assign an existing label', which implies mutation but does not state whether the assignment is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing label associations, what happens if the label or entity does not exist, or any permission requirements. The description gives no information about side effects, return values, or error handling, which is a significant 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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Assign') and includes the valuable hint about list_labels in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior, results, and prerequisites. It only covers the prerequisite of using list_labels, but omits what happens on success, whether the action is reversible, and any permission requirements. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's effects.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including a clear enum for entity and descriptions for labelId and entityId. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—only a brief mention that entity can be 'such as an Order or Customer', which is already in the schema. The schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: assign an existing label to an entity. It names the resource (label) and the target (entity) and even hints at how to find labels (via list_labels). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_labels and get_label by focusing on the assignment action, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: the label must already exist and be found via list_labels. It implies the tool is for assigning, not creating labels. There is no alternative assign-label sibling, so no explicit when-not-to-use is needed, but the prerequisite guidance is helpful and gives context on when to invoke this tool.

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