update_prompt_label

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the change applies immediately to all versions already tagged with the label, but it does not reassign labels or alter history.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that states the fields, the key sibling distinction, the immediate effect, and the prerequisite lookup. It is dense but every clause earns its place.

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 annotations, full schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly and avoid the main confusion with update_prompt_version. Return-value details are appropriately left to the output schema.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema, including the color pattern. The description reinforces that only name, description, and color are updateable, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource (update a prompt label) and narrows the scope to name, description, or color only. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_prompt_version, so an agent can choose between them without opening both schemas.

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?

It names the alternative update_prompt_version and explains how its purpose differs, including that this tool does not reassign which label a version carries. It also tells the agent to use list_prompt_labels to obtain label_id first.

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