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

Annotations already mark the operation destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds important behavioral context by disclosing the cascade effect: removing the label from every issue that carries it. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies the real scope of the destructive action.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what is removed, the cascade effect, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema is present, so nothing critical is missing.

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 documents the single parameter 'label' with the description 'Label name or id', achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource 'label' and states the full scope: the workspace and every issue carrying it. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_label, update_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 when the tool should be used (when a label needs to be permanently removed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself offers no guidance on choosing this tool over others.

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