Delete labels in bulk

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), so the bar is lowered. The description adds useful context: messages keep their place and only lose the tags, clarifying that labels are removed rather than messages. However, the cryptic 'GATED' note and the lack of explanation about the 'confirmed' parameter or confirmation workflow leave behavioral gaps. This is comparable to the TDQS example where annotations covered safety and description added scoping but not full behavior, so a 3 is warranted.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a short fragment ('Labels only, GATED.'). Every part contributes meaning: the core action, the effect on messages, and a scope restriction. Even the cryptic 'GATED' is short and might hint at a gated operation. No wasted words, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, one required, and no output schema. The description explains the primary action and effect, but it does not explain the confirmation workflow (the 'confirmed' parameter), when to use dry_run, or how this relates to single-label deletion. This is a destructive bulk operation, so the absence of guidance on using dry_run or confirming the deletion is a noticeable gap, making the description only minimally complete for the tool's complexity.

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 67% (labels and dry_run have descriptions, confirmed does not). The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, aside from the general effect on messages. According to the baseline for good schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'confirmed' parameter.

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 tool deletes multiple labels in one pass, with the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'labels'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_remove_label (which removes labels from messages) by clarifying that messages keep their place and only lose the tags, and it restricts scope to 'Labels only.'

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 provides clear context: use when you want to delete several label definitions. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., delete_label for single labels or bulk_remove_label for removing label associations), but the effect described ('Messages keep their place and lose the tags') implies a different use case than these siblings. This is clear context with no exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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