update_prompt_labels

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation ('Update') and provides a label format hint, but it does not explain whether existing labels are overwritten, what happens if the version is missing, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency 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 appropriately concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the label format. Every word earns its place, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail elsewhere.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values). However, the description leaves critical behavioral and parameter context unclear (e.g., whether labels are replaced or merged, what project signifies). An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by clarifying that labels are comma-separated, but prompt_name, version, and project are left undocumented. For a 4-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 ('Update labels') and the target ('a specific prompt version'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prompt or create_text_prompt. However, it does not specify whether labels are replaced or appended, leaving some ambiguity about the exact effect.

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, no prerequisites, and no contextual signals. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios on its own.

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