update_label

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the term 'update'. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full-overwrite, what side effects might occur (e.g., affecting linked issues), or any permission requirements. The openWorldHint annotation hints at broader effects but the description fails to elaborate.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it could be improved by front-loading the purpose more clearly (it already does). Very concise but lacks structural elements like bullet points or separation of key details.

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 6 parameters and a mutation operation, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values (e.g., updated label object), behavioral constraints, or how the update interacts with other system parts. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description completeness, which is unmet.

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%, so the input schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is provided in the schema (e.g., does not clarify update semantics like partial vs. full replace).

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 ('Update'), the resource ('an existing label'), and the scope ('in a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_label, delete_label, and list_labels.

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 implies usage through the verb 'update', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_label for new labels, delete_label for removal). No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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