create_label_on_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key non-obvious behavior (labels created this way are not added to the board's label set), which is valuable. However, it does not mention other side effects, permissions, or response behavior, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies the key distinction from related tools.

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 create operation with complete parameter schema, the description covers the core intent and the main behavioral nuance. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could have mentioned what the tool returns or any prerequisites, making it slightly under-complete for full operational context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 specific action ('Create a new label directly on a card') and distinguishes it from alternatives by noting it does not add the label to the board first. This separates it from tools like create_label or add_label_to_card.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to add a new label to a card without creating it on the board first. It implies the alternative of first creating a board label, though it does not name sibling tools directly. This provides clear context for selection.

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