modify_hierarchical_label

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining sentinel semantics: empty strings for new_text/new_shape and None for new_x/new_y mean 'keep current'. It also discloses that schematic_path can be omitted to use a default. This is beyond the annotations and helps predict tool behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: a single-purpose sentence followed by an Args block. Each line adds unique meaning with no redundancy, and the most important use-case information appears first.

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?

With 7 parameters and an output schema present, the description adequately covers all parameter behaviors including defaults and lookup mechanics. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema, and no major operational aspects (like matching, disambiguation, or optionality) are omitted.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter's purpose: text is used for lookup, new_text/new_shape use empty string as 'keep current', new_x/new_y use None as 'keep current', and uuid is for disambiguation. These are critical semantics not inferable from the schema types alone.

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 'Modify an existing hierarchical label', specifying the verb (modify) and the resource (existing hierarchical label). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_hierarchical_label or remove_hierarchical_label, and clarifies the scope as an existing entity.

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 usage context by specifying the operation is for existing labels and includes parameter-level instructions such as 'Current label text to find' and 'empty = keep current'. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance on prerequisite input (text) and optional overrides is clear.

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