create_label

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic mutation. It does not mention constraints on the color value (Trello accepts a limited palette), behavior on duplicate label names, error conditions, or what the call returns. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 declarative sentence with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool; it loses one point only because the brevity is achieved by omitting useful content rather than by compressing it.

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 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should supply context on valid inputs, return behavior, and failure cases. It supplies none of these, and the schema's own descriptions are vacuous. The definition is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool reliably without external domain knowledge about Trello labels.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are tautological — 'Parameter name', 'Parameter color', 'Parameter boardId (24 characters)' — and add no meaning beyond the key names. The tool description does not compensate: it never explains what valid colors exist, how boardId is obtained, or how name/color relate to Trello's label model. Effective semantic information for the agent is near zero despite the high coverage percentage.

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 'Crée un nouveau label sur un board Trello' uses a specific verb (create), resource (label), and scope (a Trello board). The create verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_label, list_labels, and add_label_to_card, so an agent can identify its basic purpose without opening the schema. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling or clarify the label/board relationship beyond the obvious.

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 update_label, list_labels, or bulk_add_label, and no mention of prerequisites such as an existing board or how to obtain the boardId. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list, with no stated context or exclusions.

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