update-labels

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, covering the mutation aspect. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: personal labels are identified by ID and support name/color/order/favorite, while shared labels are identified by name and support only renaming. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the operational differences between label types.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It avoids redundant details and conveys the essential distinctions in a compact, readable way. Every word 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 tool with a detailed schema and an output schema, the description captures the critical behavioral differences between personal and shared labels. It does not mention some nuances (e.g., shared label renames affect all tasks), but these are documented in the schema. The description is sufficiently complete given the schema richness.

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% coverage with detailed descriptions for all properties, including the personal/shared distinction, field constraints, and enums. The description essentially summarizes the schema without adding new meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 tool's function: 'Update one or more existing labels.' It explicitly distinguishes between personal labels (by ID) and shared labels (by name), which differentiates it from sibling tools like add-labels and find-labels. The verb 'update' combined with 'existing labels' makes the scope unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: updating existing labels. It also states a key constraint: 'Shared labels can only be renamed,' which tells the agent not to attempt color/order/favorite updates for shared labels. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., add-labels) but the wording 'existing labels' implies it is only for updates.

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