Remove a label in bulk

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'The messages stay where they are' clarifies that the operation is non-destructive to message location, and 'GATED, like remove_label' signals a confirmation step. However, the gating mechanism is not explained, and the annotations already convey idempotent, non-destructive, and mutating traits. The description complements annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise: three short sentences, each serving a purpose (purpose, non-destructive clarification, gating warning). It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler or repetition. Excellent economy of 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not fully explain the gating mechanism ('GATED') or the behavior of confirmed/uidvalidity, but these are partially covered by schema descriptions. The description is minimal and relies heavily on annotations and schema. It is sufficient for tool selection but not fully self-contained for invocation details, such as what precisely 'GATED' implies beyond the boolean parameter.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal parameter context—'one label' and 'many messages' align with the label string and uids array—but it does not clarify confirmed, dry_run, or uidvalidity beyond what the schema already provides. It neither adds nor omits significant parameter meaning.

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 states the action clearly with a specific verb and resource: 'Take one label off many messages at once.' This distinguishes it from removing a single label (remove_label) and from adding labels (bulk_apply_label). The additional sentence 'The messages stay where they are' clarifies that this is not a move or delete operation, reinforcing the tool's scope.

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 the use case (bulk operation on many messages) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'GATED, like remove_label' provides a hint about a confirmation requirement and points to a sibling tool for analogy, but it doesn't say when to choose this over bulk_apply_label or remove_label. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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