attach label set

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

The description discloses side effects well beyond the sparse annotations: attaching replaces prior bindings, detaching sets label_set_id to null, and unfrozen sets trigger a 400. It also provides the exact return shape and error messages for foreign ids. This adds rich behavioral context that the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true) do not cover.

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 dense but efficiently structured: it front-loads the action and purpose, then gives the endpoint, return shape, error notes, and key constraint in a logical order. Every sentence conveys necessary information, and the 'attaching replaces the previous one' caveat is clearly stated.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies the exact response shape, error codes, prerequisite freeze condition, and side effects. It also includes the required API-key scope, making it self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including that id must be frozen and is ignored when detach=true, and that criterion_id is non-empty. The description reaffirms these constraints but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning. Therefore the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a frozen golden set to a judge criterion' and explains the downstream consequences for calibration and certificate kappa. It also covers the detach variant, making the dual purpose explicit. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like freeze_label_set, which operate on the set's freeze state rather than the criterion binding.

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 gives clear situational context: use this to bind a frozen set to a criterion for calibration, or to clear that binding via detach. It specifies the prerequisite that the set must be frozen, and warns that a criterion holds at most one set, so attaching replaces the previous one. It does not name alternative tools, but no direct alternative exists in the sibling list.

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