Update label settings

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing blast radius ('for the whole account'), partial-update semantics, and non-retroactivity ('applies to labels made from now on'), plus a read-back path. Nothing here contradicts readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, or idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences: what changes, the scope and merge behavior, then the non-retroactivity caveat with the read-back pointer. Front-loaded and every sentence carries new information.

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 no output schema and 7 optional parameters, the description covers scope, merge semantics, and timing of effect. Minor gaps remain around permissions and whether in-flight batches are affected, but nothing blocking 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?

The description names all seven settings in domain language, which usefully maps to schema keys such as mobile_codes (QR codes) and report_format (export format). With schema coverage at 71% and five enums documented inline, the description adds orientation rather than full value-level detail, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (changes) and resource (label settings) and enumerates the exact knobs affected: label size, file format, packing list, logo, QR codes, address correction, export format. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_label_settings, which shows current values.

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?

Clear guidance on the two things an agent most needs: partial updates ('fields you leave out keep their values') and when to read instead (get_label_settings for current values). It stops short of describing prerequisites such as plan or role requirements, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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