google_gmail_labels_updateUpdate a Gmail label's name or visibility to organize and manage email labels through AI agents.
Update a Gmail label's name or visibility (partial).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Label ID. | |
| name | No | New label name. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| labelListVisibility | No | e.g. labelShow or labelHide. | |
| messageListVisibility | No | e.g. show or hide. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '(partial)' implies only supplied fields are changed, which is useful, but it omits permission/auth requirements, reversibility, and what happens to unspecified fields like messageListVisibility.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical '(partial)' is somewhat cryptic and would benefit from one clarifying clause.
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 a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves behavioral, prerequisite, and return-value expectations entirely unaddressed.
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 all five parameters (including account) are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (Update) and resource (Gmail label) with the mutable fields (name or visibility). It is distinguishable from labels_create, labels_delete, and labels_list, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or reference to alternatives. It does not say the label must already exist or when a partial update is preferable to a delete/recreate. The cryptic '(partial)' is the only hint at scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.