update_model_labels

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/non-idempotent annotations by disclosing the PUT-with-MergeLabels write strategy, that other retrieved properties (including choice definitions) are preserved, the required hash guard and unprotected-write opt-in, the residual concurrency race, and the preview-by-default behavior. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: mechanism, preservation semantics, exclusion, preconditions, and default mode. Front-loaded with the operation, zero filler.

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 destructive 17-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers safety, prerequisites, default preview, and the sibling alternative. The remaining gap is which label fields to populate and how table vs column targeting works, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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?

With 17 parameters at 24% schema description coverage, the description carries real weight: it explains that expected_hash must be current and allow_unprotected_write must be true to execute, and that preview is the default. However, it never explains the label payload parameters (display_name, description, display_collection_name), the logical_name vs attribute_name target selection, or the alias pairs, leaving most of the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update table/column labels') and names the underlying mechanism (native full-definition PUT with MSCRM.MergeLabels=true), which makes the scope concrete. It explicitly rules out option-value updates, though it does not distinguish itself from the nearby update_model_column_settings sibling.

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?

Gives a clear when-not ('Does not update option values: use change_model_choice_value') plus hard execution preconditions (current expected_hash and allow_unprotected_write=true). It also flags that the default is preview, so an agent knows the first call is non-destructive. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over update_model_column_settings.

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