set_event_sub_label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Set' without disclosing side effects, whether it overwrites existing sub-labels, error behavior, or authorization requirements. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part earns its place, providing the primary purpose and an illustrative example.

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?

The tool is simple, schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to use vs. sibling tools and doesn't hint at expected behavior beyond the action itself, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a parenthetical example for sub_label, while sub_label_score is already well described in the schema. No significant added meaning.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'sub-label on an event', with an example that distinguishes it from other event-setting tools. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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 gives an example of when to use it ('to identify a specific person') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the name and example imply it is for sub-labels as opposed to other setters like attributes or description.

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