evidence_set_label

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful guarantee (existing labels are retained), but it does not disclose mutation side effects, permission requirements, or failure behavior, which matters for a write operation.

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 entire description is one sentence with the action front-loaded and the non-destructive qualifier immediately after. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present and all parameters fully described in the input schema, the description covers the core operation and its most important behavioral nuance. Minor gaps remain around identifier selection (id vs kod) and explicit routing to label-removal siblings, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly from this definition.

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 100%, so the schema already documents evidence, label, id, and kod, including the id/kod alternative. The description merely reuses the words 'label' and 'record' and adds no syntax, constraints, or parameter relationships beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('a label to a record') and, crucially, the qualifier 'keeping its existing labels' distinguishes it from sibling operations such as evidence_unset_label and evidence_unset_labels. It is not a tautology and tells an agent exactly what the tool accomplishes.

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 implies the intended use: add a label while preserving existing labels. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like evidence_unset_label/evidence_unset_labels, so the agent must infer the route to sibling tools.

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