update_board_label

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint false) and idempotency (idempotentHint true). The description adds that it updates a label definition but does not disclose side effects, error cases, or authorization needs. Given the annotations, the description provides adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second specifies a key constraint. No unnecessary information, 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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown) and the tool has moderate complexity, the description covers core functionality effectively. It does not mention that the label must exist or error conditions, but these are implicit. The description is nearly complete for an update tool with good annotations.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating the constraint that at least one of title, color, description, or category is required, which is not captured in the schema's required array. It also clarifies the 'label' parameter as _id or exact title, though that repeats the schema.

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 tool updates a board label definition, specifies identification by _id or exact title, and lists the updatable fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_board_label and delete_board_label.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or conditions. It only states a requirement (at least one update field) but lacks context for selection among many update tools.

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