waroom_update_incident_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool assigns or updates labels on incidents, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing labels not included in 'label_uuids'. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp 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 tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or interaction with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies incident labels, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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%, with both parameters ('incident_uuid' and 'label_uuids') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how label updates work (e.g., whether they replace or append). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('付与または更新します' - assign or update) and the resource ('インシデントにラベル' - labels on incidents), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'waroom_update_service_label' which also updates labels but on services rather than incidents, missing explicit differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'waroom_update_service_label' or other incident-related tools such as 'waroom_update_incident_severity' or 'waroom_update_incident_status'. The description implies usage for label management on incidents but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios.

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