Label a terminal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses removal via empty string but does not explain whether labels merge with or replace existing labels, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like — critical gaps 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core operation and the notable removal rule are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and a nested labels object create a high burden. The description omits whether existing labels are preserved when setting new ones, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, with the labels parameter lacking a schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining free-form key=value labels and empty-string removal, but it still leaves ambiguity about merge/replace semantics for the labels object.

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 specific verb and resource: set or remove labels on a terminal, with free-form key=value syntax. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic sibling herdr_put.

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?

It provides one useful usage rule — an empty string removes a label — but offers no guidance on when to use this instead of herdr_put or other mutation tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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