Modify labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that removing \Inbox archives and explains the backslash prefix for system labels. However, it does not mention side effects on invalid labels, permission requirements, or error handling.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then provides critical detail about label naming and the effect of removing \Inbox.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but lacks completeness on return values, error conditions, and prerequisites. It adequately explains the label format and a key side effect.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the naming convention (backslash for system labels) and the archival effect of removing \Inbox, which are not fully captured in the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: adding and/or removing Gmail labels on a message. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'archive' (which is a specific label action) and 'create_label' (which creates labels) by specifying the action on existing labels.

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 implicitly mentions that removing \Inbox archives, which relates to the 'archive' sibling tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or provide prerequisites. No when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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