Update a label group

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

The destructive disclosure is excellent and goes well past destructiveHint=true: omitted values are removed and already-classified emails/meetings lose that label. However, the emphasized rule that a value without an id is always created as a NEW value each call means identical arguments do not produce an identical end state (old ids are dropped and classifications lost), which is at odds with the idempotentHint=true annotation.

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?

Every sentence carries a distinct, non-redundant fact, with the replace semantics front-loaded ahead of the id-preservation rule and the consequences. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With annotations, a full-coverage schema, and a declared return value (structuredContent {label}), the description covers what an agent needs to call this correctly. The remaining gap is the idempotency tension noted above rather than missing call mechanics.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the replace-only contract for values, the keep-by-id convention, the display format in heliyos_labels_list, and the downstream consequence for classified emails and meetings. is_active is left to the schema, which already explains it.

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 a specific resource (a label group) plus the four mutable aspects (name, description, active flag, values) keyed by label_id. It is clearly distinguishable from heliyos_labels_create/delete, and it names heliyos_labels_list as the source of value ids.

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?

Provides concrete operational guidance: to keep a value, re-send it with its existing id obtained from heliyos_labels_list. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to use this tool versus create or delete a group, or what to do when the group is not found.

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