label_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden, and it does disclose one important behavior: the change does not affect existing card assignments (a side-effect scoping statement). It says nothing about partial-update semantics when only one of name/color is supplied, permissions/auth requirements, idempotency, or error cases for invalid label IDs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the trigger condition and the key scope constraint come first, and every clause adds 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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a trigger sentence: the description should state that unspecified fields remain unchanged, that it returns the updated label, and whether the caller needs write scope. The card-assignment note is valuable but does not fill those gaps.

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%, including the enum list for color and the note that null removes the color, so the baseline is 3. The description only mirrors that name/color are the mutable fields and adds no syntax, defaults, or 'omitted means unchanged' clarification.

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 names specific operations (rename, change color) on a specific resource (Trello label), and the clause 'without changing any card assignments' separates it from the sibling card_label_add/card_label_remove/card_label_create_and_add tools. An agent can pick the right tool without opening any schema.

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 opening 'Use when...' gives an explicit trigger condition and the card-assignment clause implicitly excludes the assignment-manipulation siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives outright (e.g. 'use card_label_add instead to assign'), so it is a clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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