label_update_text

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 that the label must already exist, implying a mutation, but does not describe failure behavior, whether text is overwritten, or any side effects on associated label data. This is thin for a mutating tool.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args block. Every line earns its place, and the key format detail is important and immediately useful.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the operation and both arguments. Minor missing context includes return value/confirmation and error behavior when the key does not exist, but the tool is straightforward enough that these are not critical gaps.

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 provides only field names with no descriptions, so this is a 0% schema coverage case. The description compensates by documenting both parameters: key uses 'trackId:itemId' format and text is the replacement label text. It could add more detail about how to obtain a valid key, but it covers the essential semantics.

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 identifies the operation as changing the text of an existing label, naming the specific resource and action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling label_edit, which may cover similar label-editing behavior.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as label_edit, label_add, or label_remove. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as verifying the label key exists, or any conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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