label_regular_intervals

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

With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavior. It explains that labels are created at regular intervals and that they will be numbered (via the label_text parameter), but it does not specify how existing labels are handled, whether the selection is used as the range, or if labels are placed on the label track. The description omits side effects and any details about the creation process beyond the basic action.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the core function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the parameter descriptions are compact yet informative. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 description lacks essential contextual details for an agent to use it correctly. It does not specify the label track requirement, the behavior when no selection exists, or how the labels are positioned relative to the selection start/end. There is no mention of output or confirmation, and the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent without additional assumptions.

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 description adds meaningful context to all three parameters: 'interval' is clarified as time in seconds, 'adjust' is explained as fitting the selection evenly, and 'label_text' notes that labels will be numbered. This goes beyond the schema's type/default information, providing practical understanding. However, it could elaborate on the exact numbering scheme or how 'adjust' interacts with the interval, so it is not perfect.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create labels at regular time intervals across the selection or project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'regular time intervals' distinguishes it from other label tools. However, the phrase 'across the selection or project' is ambiguous about whether it applies to the entire project or just the current selection, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like label_add_batch or label_add_at. It lacks context on typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred. The only implicit hint is that it creates multiple labels at regular intervals, but no explicit usage instructions are given.

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