todoist_rename_shared_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. 'Rename' implies mutation, but it doesn't address permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or what happens to tasks using renamed labels. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward rename operation and front-loads the essential action.

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 is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is missing given the tool's complexity (batch operations, mutation).

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 the schema fully documents all 3 parameters and their purposes. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying batch capability with 'one or more'. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide additional context like naming constraints or batch limits.

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 verb ('rename') and resource ('shared labels in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'one or more' which indicates batch capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_update_personal_label' or 'todoist_remove_shared_labels' beyond the 'shared' qualifier.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing shared labels), when to choose batch vs single operations, or how it differs from personal label operations. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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