update_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms the mutation but never states whether updates are partial (only supplied fields change), what happens with an invalid or nonexistent labelId, idempotency, or what is returned. This mirrors the update_drive calibration case: a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage must say considerably more.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and object lead and every word earns its place. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits update semantics, error behavior, return format, and routing among siblings like create_label and add_label_to_card. Even at low-to-moderate complexity, a one-sentence purpose statement is not sufficient on its own.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the schema entries are tautological ('Parameter name', 'Parameter color'), so the description does real work: it maps name to the label's display name, color to the label's color, and clarifies via 'et/ou' that the two fields are independently updatable on an existing label identified by labelId. This raises it above the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Modifie'), a resource ('un label existant'), and the exact scope ('nom et/ou couleur'). The word 'existant' cleanly distinguishes it from create_label, and the (name/color) scope separates it from add_label_to_card / remove_label_from_card, which manage card-label relationships rather than label properties.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives: it never mentions create_label for new labels, nor add_label_to_card / remove_label_from_card for card associations, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only hint is 'et/ou', which implies either field can be updated, but that is parameter semantics, not tool-selection guidance.

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