set_sensitivity_labels

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses several important behaviors: the operation is batched, requires an explicit admin scope, and names are SHA-256 redacted in outputs unless toggled. This goes well beyond a basic one-line summary, though it could still explain failure semantics or dry-run behavior more fully.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by three high-signal behavioral details in a very small space. No sentence is filler, and the formatting makes the admin scope and redaction behavior immediately discoverable.

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?

The tool involves six parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, which means the description needs to cover more operational context. It provides the endpoint, scoping, and redaction, but it does not clarify items format, the dry_run default, the meaning of both label_id and label_name, or allowed representative admin_scopes. This is likely too incomplete for safe autonomous 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for otherwise opaque parameters. It only meaningfully explains redact_names (and loosely touches on admin_scopes through the scope gate), leaving items, label_id, label_name, and dry_run without usable semantics. For a 6-parameter tool with no schema explanations, this is insufficient.

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 specific action ('Apply a Microsoft Purview sensitivity label to one or more items'), identifies the resource with a named verb, and indicates the batched nature through the endpoint reference. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, which target different operations such as planning, deploying, or refreshing.

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 gives implicit usage context: it is an admin-gated, batched labeling operation, and it notes the required scope. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no usage guidance beyond the contextual prerequisite, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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