remove_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety/behavior details. It only states the high-level removal action and does not mention whether the label definition is unaffected, if the operation is reversible, or any side effects or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 concise: two short sentences. The first front-loads the action, and the second adds a purpose. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy.

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 no annotations or output schema, and the description provides minimal context. It does not explain response behavior, side effects, or how to choose between this and the sibling 'remove_label_from_card'. While the schema covers parameters, the overall description leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, with all parameters already described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters (e.g., cardId, labelId, fields, detailLevel). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a label from a card.' It distinguishes from label deletion (delete_label) and addition (add_label) by specifying the card context. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'remove_label_from_card', which may cause ambiguity.

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 sentence 'Use this tool to update the categorization of a card' provides a general usage context, indicating when to apply it (when changing a card's labels). Yet it lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternatives, especially given the near-duplicate sibling tool, so guidance is vague.

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