Update a label

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

The description explains the side effect of setting 'is_default: true' (clears others) and that only included fields are changed. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and non-destructive nature, but the description adds valuable 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 well-structured with an overview, Args list, and Examples. It is clear but could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining some sentences).

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?

For an update tool, it covers the main behavior and side effects adequately. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., whether it returns the updated label or a success status), which could be useful for agents.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with type, constraints, and meaning in the 'Args' section, with examples providing practical use cases.

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 uses specific verbs ('Update') and resource ('label'), and the examples clarify usage. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_label' and 'get_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 tool's purpose is evident from the name and description, but no explicit guidance on when to use this over other update tools (e.g., update_card) is given. The examples provide concrete scenarios.

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