Update label

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing PATCH semantics (omitted fields retain current values), the underlying WS endpoint, the return payload, and non-raising error behavior returning `{"error": ...}`. It does not discuss permissions or whether a change can be reverted, which is the remaining gap on a tool flagged destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then compact labeled lines for behavior, use case, return and errors. No filler, no redundancy, and the most decision-relevant fact (partial update) appears early.

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 5-parameter update tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the remaining unknowns: mutation semantics, error contract, and trigger conditions. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so per-parameter meaning is already documented; the description still adds cross-parameter semantics — that only supplied fields are transmitted and everything else is left untouched — which the schema alone cannot convey.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Update fields on an existing label") plus the exact mutable fields, which cleanly separates it from labels_create_label, labels_delete_label and labels_update_category. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the noun/verb pair is 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?

"Use when: renaming a label or changing its icon, color or description" gives a concrete trigger for calling the tool. No when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., delete/recreate), but for a straightforward field update the context is clear.

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