update_label

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

The description declares this as an update operation (mutation) and states it returns the updated label. Without annotations, this discloses key behavioral traits, though it could mention that changes propagate to all cards using the label.

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 that wastes no words: it states purpose, required inputs, and return value. It is optimally concise and front-loaded.

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 simple update tool with an output schema available, the description covers the minimum necessary details (what, how, return). It is adequate but could add more context on valid color values or side effects.

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 description clarifies that name and color are the updatable fields, adding context beyond the schema which has no descriptions. It also emphasizes label_id as required. This compensates for 0% schema coverage, though does not address default values.

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 tool updates a Trello label, specifies required inputs (label_id and fields name/color), and mentions the return value. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like create_label or delete_label.

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 says to provide label_id and fields, offering basic usage instructions. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_board_labels or create_label, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool vs others.

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