vikunja_task_labels

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists three operations but fails to explain side effects, error conditions (e.g., what happens if a label doesn't exist, or if removing a label that isn't applied), or idempotency. The description is too minimal to convey expected behavior.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise. However, it sacrifices clarity by being too minimal. It could be restructured to front-load the task context and clarify parameter usage without adding much length.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It does not explain which parameters are required for each operation (e.g., 'labels' is required for apply and remove but not for list). Additionally, it doesn't mention that label IDs must exist (likely created via 'vikunja_labels'). Incomplete for practical use.

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%, so the description should compensate. It merely lists operations without explaining parameter meaning. For instance, it doesn't specify that 'id' refers to the task ID, or that 'labels' is an array of label IDs relevant only for 'apply-label' and 'remove-label'. The description adds little value beyond the parameter names.

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 'Manage task labels: apply, remove, list labels' clearly indicates the tool is for operations on task labels. It lists three specific operations. However, it could more explicitly state that it operates on a specific task (via the 'id' parameter) to better distinguish from 'vikunja_labels' which manages labels globally.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it doesn't clarify that this tool associates labels with tasks, while 'vikunja_labels' is for creating/deleting labels themselves. No preconditions or context for each operation are provided.

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