waroom_update_service_label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing label data, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere, though it could benefit from slightly more context about the update operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about the update operation beyond the basic purpose. Given the complexity of updating labels and the lack of structured metadata, more descriptive content is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation in Japanese. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('特定のサービスのラベル' - specific service's label), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like waroom_create_service_label or waroom_delete_service_label, but the verb 'update' implies a different operation from create/delete.

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 like waroom_create_service_label or waroom_delete_service_label. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for label updates versus other label operations.

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