Remove Labels from a Niche

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: return fields `removed`/`notPresent`, all-or-nothing atomicity with a failure mode that lists offending ids, idempotency ('ids already in the wanted state are counted, never errors, so a repeat is safe'), no quota cost, and a 2-calls-per-minute-per-niche rate limit. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then returns, undo, permissions, atomicity, idempotency, cost, and rate limits in tight successive sentences. No sentence is padding — each carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Combined with the failure semantics, permission model, and rate limit, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt and to explain failures to the user.

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 `nicheId` and `labelIds` are already fully documented (including the 1-100 range and uniqueness). The description's mention of ids coming from `list_labels` and the batching advice duplicate or only lightly extend the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('take a niche out of one or more labels') and immediately names the inverse sibling `add_niche_labels` plus the id source `list_labels`. This distinguishes it cleanly from `add_niche_labels`, `add_niche_spaces`, and `remove_niche_spaces` without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 gives the id source (`list_labels`), the undo path (`add_niche_labels`), the exact permission condition (org owner or team admin, else 403 INSUFFICIENT_ROLE with instructions to tell the user rather than retry), and batching guidance ('put every id in one call'). This covers when to use, when not to retry, and how to batch.

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