manage_gmail_label

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

The description discloses side effects (creates/mutates/deletes a label) and notes that delete is destructive and unrecoverable. It also mentions the OAuth scope. With no annotations provided, this is good but lacks details on edge cases like duplicate names or invalid label IDs.

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 with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by side effects, alternative tool, and auth requirement. No unnecessary words.

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 tool manages CRUD on labels with explicit side effects and alternative guidance, plus the schema covers all parameters, the description provides sufficient context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on the meaning of label_list_visibility or message_list_visibility).

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 creates, updates, or deletes a Gmail label, specifying the resource (label) and actions. It differentiates from the sibling tool modify_gmail_message_labels by noting that tool handles applying/removing labels from messages, not managing labels themselves.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including when not to use (for message label changes) and directs to an alternative tool (modify_gmail_message_labels). It also states the required OAuth scope (gmail.labels).

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