update_prompt_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that labels are added (not replaced), are unique across versions, and that the 'latest' label is managed by Langfuse. This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. Could mention idempotency or behavior on duplicate labels.

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?

Three sentences, each providing essential information without redundancy. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every sentence earns 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?

For a simple tool with three straightforward parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: additive labels, uniqueness, and Langfuse-managed 'latest'. It could add a note about idempotency but is largely complete.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: 'Provided labels are added to the version (existing labels are preserved)' and 'Labels are unique across versions'. This clarifies the behavior of the labels parameter beyond the schema's description.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'labels for a specific prompt version'. It also distinguishes this as the only supported mutation for existing prompts, setting it apart from sibling tools like create_chat_prompt or create_text_prompt.

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 states it is the only supported mutation for existing prompts, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools for other operations.

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