vk_put_labels_579a24596e31

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication, creator requirement, and parameter aliasing. However, it states 'Pass the JSON request payload in the optional body field' while the schema lists 'body' as required, which creates confusion about the actual behavior. It also does not describe response format or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the primary action 'Update a label' and is compact overall. However, there is redundancy: 'Update a label' and 'Update an existing label' convey the same idea, and the raw proxy explanation is repeated. Still, the key information is presented concisely enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the operation and the absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably adequate but has gaps. It does not mention what the response will contain (e.g., the updated label object) or possible error scenarios (e.g., 404 if not found). The misleading 'optional body' comment also leaves incomplete guidance for constructing a valid request.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters but with minimal detail (e.g., body just 'The label object'). The description adds value by explaining that 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields' and that parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases. This clarifies how to invoke the proxy beyond the raw schema.

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's function: 'Update a label.' It also specifies it's a raw proxy for PUT /labels/{id}, which clarifies the resource and operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'vk_put_labels_de9ad1e5fe26' which likely performs the same action, and the title is null, preventing further distinction.

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 clear context for usage: 'The user needs to be the creator of the label to be able to do this' and 'Authentication is required.' This gives a strong condition for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use vikunja_create_label for creating labels) or exclusions beyond the creator requirement.

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