replace_issue_labels

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

No annotations provided, so description fully explains behavior: every existing label is removed and only listed ones remain. Mentions that labels are names, not IDs. Could add detail on handling empty array, but overall adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and key detail, second provides crucial usage guideline. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, description covers purpose, behavior, and usage. Could mention error handling or idempotency, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, e.g., clarifying that labels are 'names', but schema already says 'label names'.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'REPLACE' and resource 'issue's ENTIRE label set', immediately distinguishing from siblings like add or remove labels.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Read current labels first if any must survive; confirm with the user before replacing', which provides clear when-to-use and safety guidance.

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