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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already signal. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with creating a label, but the description does not disclose duplicate behavior, account requirements, or any consequences of creation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. While it is minimal, it is appropriately concise for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the optional 'account' parameter, potential duplicate behavior, or how this differs from creating lists or notes, leaving the agent with incomplete operational understanding.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It says nothing about the required 'name' parameter or the optional 'account' parameter, leaving the agent without information on what values are expected or how they affect label creation.

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 ('Criar' = create) and the resource ('label'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like keep_delete_label and keep_list_labels. However, it lacks any scope qualifier or differentiation beyond the obvious verb-resource pairing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as keep_create_list or keep_add_label_to_note. The context implies creation of a label, but there is no explicit usage context or exclusionary information.

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