todoist_update_personal_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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether updates are idempotent, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action ('Update') and resource ('personal labels'), with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's scope in minimal space, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 the complexity (mutation tool with batch support, 7 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error cases), usage context, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that modifies data. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no structured safety or output information.

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 7 parameters, their types, optionality, and constraints (e.g., color enum). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying batch capability ('one or more'), which is already clear from the 'labels' array parameter in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing personal labels in Todoist'), and specifies it can handle batch operations ('one or more'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'todoist_rename_shared_labels' or 'todoist_update_task_labels', which also involve label modifications but for different label types or contexts.

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 label IDs or names), compare it to sibling tools like 'todoist_delete_personal_label' or 'todoist_get_personal_label', or specify use cases for batch versus single updates. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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