edit_lab

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description correctly notes that only supplied fields are changed, implying partial update/patch-like behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the lab must be open/stopped, permissions required, or whether changes are reversible. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 structured with a clear one-sentence summary followed by an Args list. Every sentence provides value. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the purpose. Slightly redundant with the parameter list since schema already has parameter names, but the 'if changing' context adds clarity.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description explains all parameters' semantics sufficiently for basic use. It does not discuss return values (which the output schema presumably covers), side effects, or prerequisites. Considering the tool complexity (editing metadata), completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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. The description lists each parameter (lab_path, name, version, author, description, body) with brief 'if changing' semantics. It adds context beyond the schema by clarifying that optional parameters are only updated if supplied. However, it does not explain format constraints or expected values (e.g., valid version strings). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the listing but lack of depth.

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 'Edit an existing lab's metadata' using a specific verb+resource. It adds 'only supplied fields are changed' which clarifies partial update semantics. It differentiates from siblings like create_lab or delete_lab.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_lab for new labs or share_lab for permissions. However, 'Edit an existing lab's metadata' implies it is for modifying existing labs, and the sibling context provides differentiation. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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