set_task_labels

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that labels are untouched and only the link to the task changes. This clarifies side effects and scope. Annotations already indicate mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description reinforces these without contradiction.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action, followed by a clarifying note on scope. No wordiness, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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's low complexity, the description covers purpose, effect, and boundary (labels untouched), and with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing further is needed. Output schema exists so return format need not be explained.

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%, giving parameter names and simple descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that 'add' and 'remove' opertate on label names and that priority/size are represented as labels, helping the agent understand how to use the parameters in the context of the tool's purpose.

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: 'Apply or take labels off a task'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_labels by explaining that labels themselves are untouched, making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context: this changes a task's priority or size via labels, and labels themselves are not modified. This implicitly tells the agent not to use it for label management, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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