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. It discloses the key behavioral trait of partial update, but omits other important aspects such as whether the label must exist, authorization requirements, or side effects. This is a minimal but non-trivial disclosure.

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 only two short sentences, with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the critical partial-update detail, making every word earn its place.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and the simple nature of the tool, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential partial-update behavior, though it could have been enhanced by noting the required label_id or referencing create_label for alternative use cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that only provided fields change, which is essential for understanding the optional parameters. However, it does not explain the meaning of fields like project_id, which could be ambiguous in the context of a label update.

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 explicitly states 'Update a label', providing a clear verb and resource. The additional phrase 'Only provided fields change' distinguishes it from full-replace operations and clarifies partial update semantics, setting it apart from sibling tools like create_label.

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 usage context is implied—use this when you need to modify an existing label. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., create_label for new labels) or provide exclusions, leaving the decision to the agent without direct guidance.

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