raw_paste_new_label

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

Discloses potential side effects ('May open a dialog or change project state') and identifies it as a static no-argument action. However, it lacks specifics on what state changes occur or what dialog appears. With no annotations to supplement, the description only partially covers behavioral transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the core action is front-loaded, followed by a relevant caution. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and potential side effects. The command is simple, and the caution about project state is important. A slight gap exists in not explaining what a 'new label' entails (e.g., placement), but this is likely implied by the command name.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'no-argument' but adds no further meaning. No parameters exist to describe, so this is adequate.

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: 'Paste text from the clipboard into a new label,' specifying the verb, resource, and source. This distinguishes it from siblings like edit_paste (paste into project) and label_add (add label) by focusing on the clipboard source and creation of a new label.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The caution 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable and does not clarify conditions for selection. No mention of when to prefer this raw action over higher-level tools.

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