remove_project_label

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

Given the annotation openWorldHint, which warns of unspecified behaviors, the description adds value by clarifying that the label itself is not deleted. This counters a potential misconception and provides key behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be improved by adding brief parameter descriptions without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The description covers the core action and distinguishes from deletion, but lacks parameter descriptions, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., existence of project/label), and does not mention the return value (though output schema exists). It is adequate for a simple tool but has gaps.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter meaning. It provides no explanation for the two parameters 'label_id' and 'project_id', relying solely on their names which are moderately clear but insufficient for unambiguous usage.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'project label from a project', and explicitly distinguishes it from deleting the label itself by saying 'without deleting the reusable label'. This differentiates it from siblings like 'delete_label' and 'remove_issue_label'.

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 implies when to use the tool (to remove a label from a project while keeping the label reusable) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'delete_label' or 'add_project_label'. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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