mgmt_label_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation updates a label and expects a body with a name, but it does not disclose mutating effects, permission requirements, whether partial updates are allowed, or what happens if the label does not exist.

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 short and to the point, with no redundant text or fluff. The body example is useful, though the leading URL is not immediately actionable information and adds minor structural noise.

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?

The description is only minimally complete for a management mutation tool. It supplies a body shape and labelId is in the schema, but with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral context such as side effects, authorization needs, and expected response semantics, which an agent would benefit from knowing before invoking it.

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%, providing baseline clarity for labelId and pretty. The description adds meaningful semantic value by concretely showing the expected body structure {'label': {'name': '...'}}, which the generic body schema does not specify.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update label', and includes a body example showing label name modification. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mgmt_label_create, mgmt_label_get, and mgmt_label_delete through the update verb and the provided body structure.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mgmt_label_create or mgmt_label_delete. The intended use case is only implied by the verb 'update' and the presence of labelId and a rename body, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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