manage_labels

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the WhatsApp Business account prerequisite and the per-action behavior (e.g., create vs. delete operating on different objects). It does not state that delete is irreversible, but the annotation carries that signal.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and prerequisite in one line, followed by a compact action table mapping each action to its required parameters. Every line earns its place; the formatting is scannable rather than padded.

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 4 parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing prerequisites and action-to-parameter mapping an agent needs to invoke correctly. Only the return/result behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap for a 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: which parameters each action requires (add/remove need label_name/label_id + conversation_id; create needs label_name). That mapping is valuable guidance beyond the per-field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Manage WhatsApp Business labels') and then enumerates the four concrete actions (add, remove, create, delete), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from siblings like manage_lists, manage_notes, and manage_reminders, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied through the prerequisite ('Requires a WhatsApp Business account') and the per-action parameter requirements, which tell the agent how to invoke each mode. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance and no statement about which contexts call for this tool over siblings.

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