label_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action 'attach' without mentioning idempotency, whether the label replaces or appends, or any side effects. There is no information about mutability, authorization, or error states.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and important details. It front-loads the action but omits parameter contexts, making it under-specific. A slightly longer, more structured description would be more helpful.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, this description is incomplete. A labeling tool would benefit from specifying whether existing labels are overwritten, whether the favorite flag toggles, and what the response indicates (e.g., success or updated state).

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only generically mentions 'short label and/or favorite flag', but does not define plan_id, the string format for label, or permissible values for is_favorite. This leaves the agent without essential usage details.

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 action ('Attach') and the resource ('persisted plan') with specific attributes ('short label and/or favorite flag'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_meal_plan, swap_meal, and list_plans, which perform different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_preferences or regenerate_plan. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or notes about not using this tool in certain scenarios.

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