todoist_rename_shared_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the action ('rename') but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether the operation is destructive (likely yes, as renaming modifies data), error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with batch/single modes, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema fully documents the three parameters and their anyOf logic for batch vs. single operations. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'labels' array and individual 'name'/'new_name' fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('rename') and resource ('shared labels in Todoist'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'todoist_update_personal_label' or 'todoist_remove_shared_labels', which handle similar label operations but for different label types or actions.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing shared labels), compare to sibling tools like 'todoist_update_personal_label' for personal labels, or specify scenarios for batch versus single operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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