manage_labels

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

Annotation contradiction: destructiveHint=false contradicts the description's 'remove' labels and 'delete_unused' parameter, which can delete data. The description does disclose a safety behavior ('A label still applied to cards is never deleted'), but this does not reconcile with the false destructiveHint. Per rubric, a contradiction yields a score of 1.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and object; the second adds a crucial safety constraint. All content earns its place and is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema descriptions, the description covers purpose and key safety behavior. It does not mention that create/rename/delete_unused can be combined in one call (schema implies via defaults), but this is a minor gap. Overall, adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well (e.g., 'Label names to delete. Refused if the label is on any card.'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the three operations, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create, rename or remove') and a clear resource ('labels a project uses'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_task_labels which assign labels to tasks. It also clarifies the label types (priority, size, state), giving full contextual specificity.

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 clearly implies this tool manages label definitions rather than applying them, which differentiates it from set_task_labels. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is evident from the wording and sibling context.

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