value_labels

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the semantics of `clear` (removes existing labels first) and the label value format, which is genuinely useful. However, it is silent on permission requirements, whether live attachment is destructive, whether labels persist without a `save` path, and the return/acknowledgement behavior — for a mutation tool with no annotations, that leaves significant gaps.

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, front-loaded with the primary operation and followed immediately by the two key parameters. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics but omits critical operational context: what 'attach' means for concurrency/side effects, whether labels persist without `save`, and what happens on invalid value/label mappings. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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 coverage is 86% — the schema already documents `path`, `save`, `clear`, `attach`, `labels`, and `variable` in detail. The description adds the shape of `labels` values (string or {label, description}) and the meaning of `clear` ordering, but does not add anything for the other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb ('Attach or clear text labels') plus precise resource ('numeric values of a variable'). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_measurement, recode, or rename_variables, which operate on different aspects of variables.

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?

Implicitly states two modes (attach via `labels`, clear via `clear`) but does not explicitly say when to prefer live-editing ('attach') versus a new process, nor when to use this versus recode; no when-not guidance or alternatives named.

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