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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: a 404 if the label does not exist, the label-source prerequisite, and the underlying POST endpoint. 'Safe to repeat' largely restates idempotentHint=true, but the error behavior is information the annotations do not carry.

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 front-loaded sentence with the WRITE marker first, then semantics, failure mode, dependency, and endpoint. No wasted words.

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 write with no output schema and idempotency already annotated, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, failure mode, and endpoint. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on the response/effect would round it out.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the label-name source. The description only echoes that label names come from supportbee_list_labels, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('adds an existing label to a ticket') and the wiring to the sibling that supplies valid labels (supportbee_list_labels). This cleanly distinguishes it from supportbee_remove_label and the other ticket-mutation siblings.

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?

Explicitly frames the operation as a WRITE and directs the agent to supportbee_list_labels for valid names, which is the prerequisite an agent needs. It does not state when *not* to use it, but the 'existing label' constraint effectively scopes usage.

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