label_edit

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses that editing is partial and non-destructive to unspecified fields: 'Only the fields you pass are changed' and each optional field defaults to 'unchanged.' It does not mention error handling, permissions, or return values, but the key behavioral trait for a partial-edit operation is covered.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a structured Args list that makes each parameter's role immediately scannable. Every sentence contributes necessary information without filler.

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 edit tool, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly: required key, optional fields, timing units, and partial-update behavior. The main gap is the absent handling of explicit null values—since null is the schema default, it remains ambiguous whether passing null clears a field or means 'unchanged,' which could matter in edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters, and it does. It specifies the key format ('trackId:itemId'), the meaning of text, start, and end, and the unit for times (seconds). It also clarifies the default semantics for optional parameters, adding substantial value 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 states a specific verb ('Edit'), a resource ('existing label'), and a clear scope ('text and/or timing'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like label_add (existing vs new) and label_update_text (text plus timing in one call) through its explicit scope.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an existing label's text or timing needs to be modified. The phrase 'in one call' suggests it is the consolidated editing tool, and 'Only the fields you pass are changed' gives partial-update context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like label_update_text or state when not to use it.

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