Update label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces the mutation aspect and adds the specific behavioral scope: only 'name or color' are changed, implying other properties are untouched. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the limited effect of the update. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 only three parameters, a fully described schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides sufficient context. It states the purpose and usage, and the schema covers parameters. With no output schema and no nested objects, nothing else is needed for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (labelId, name, color). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it merely restates that name and color can be updated. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation, the description's contribution is minimal, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb ('update') and the resource ('existing label'), and explicitly specifies the scope ('name or color'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_label and delete_label by requiring an existing label, and the specific fields are named, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides a direct usage condition: 'Use this when the user wants to rename or recolor a label.' This tells the agent when to select this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the condition is clear enough to avoid confusion with create_label or delete_label. A small gap is the absence of exclusions (e.g., if the label doesn't exist), but that is implied by 'existing'.

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