github_issues_set_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description does not mention that this tool replaces all existing labels with the provided set, which is a critical behavioral detail. Without this, the agent may assume it adds labels instead of replacing 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 extremely concise (5 words) but lacks essential information. While brevity is good, it omits critical details about behavior and usage, making it minimally viable.

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 complexity of the sibling set (add labels, remove label, remove all labels), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the replacement behavior, the required body format, or any prerequisites. No output schema exists, so more context is needed.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for parameters, but descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the 'body' parameter which expects a labels structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'set labels' on the resource 'an issue', but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'github_issues_add_labels' (which appends labels) or 'github_issues_remove_all_labels'. A higher score would require explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_issues_add_labels' or 'github_issues_remove_label'. An agent could confuse this tool with add, leading to unintended label replacement.

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