label_edit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains the default behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the default for each parameter ('unchanged'). However, it does not mention any side effects, error conditions, or what happens with invalid indexes. It also does not state whether the operation is reversible or if it returns anything. This is a mutation tool with no annotations, so more disclosure would be beneficial.

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 well-organized with an introductory sentence, a prerequisite note, usage examples, and a clear Args list. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. The structure makes it easy to scan and use.

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 simple edit tool with four parameters and no output schema, this description covers all essential aspects: how to obtain the index, which fields can be changed, and their default semantics. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or whether both start and end can be changed simultaneously, but these are minor given the clear 'fields you pass are changed' statement. The tool is adequately specified for correct usage.

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 description provides thorough explanations for all four parameters. It details 'index' as a flat label index from label_list, and defines 'text', 'start', and 'end' with units and default behavior. This goes well beyond the bare schema (which has 0% coverage), effectively compensating for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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: 'Edit an existing label's text and/or timing.' It specifies the resource (labels) and the actions (text and timing change). It also gives concrete usage examples, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like label_add or label_delete.

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 guidance on how to use the tool: 'Get the index from label_list' is a prerequisite, and the examples show how to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., when creating a label), but the context is strongly implied. It offers enough direction for an agent to know it is for editing existing labels.

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