update_label

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions renaming and visibility changes but omits details about account and password parameters. It does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 6 parameters.

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 a single 12-word sentence, making it concise but at the expense of completeness. It prioritizes brevity but omits necessary details about parameters and behavior. It is not well-structured to convey all needed information efficiently.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of account/password, does not mention return values, and lacks prerequisites or examples. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 only elaborates on 'name' and 'visibility' parameters (label_list_visibility, message_list_visibility), but fails to explain 'account' and 'password' at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it leaves two parameters completely undefined, adding limited value beyond 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 renames or changes visibility of a label, with the verb 'rename' and 'change visibility' and resource 'label'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_label, delete_label, and list_labels, as it focuses on modifying an existing label. The mention 'identified by name or id' adds specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use create_label for new labels or when to use delete_label. No exclusion criteria or context are given, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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