create_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only adds the OAuth scope and the obvious fact that the operation creates a label. It does not address idempotency, duplicate names, return behavior, or side effects.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and one for the required scope. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return behavior, error cases, and duplicate-label behavior unstated. It is enough for selecting the tool, but not for fully anticipating the outcome of an invocation.

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?

The description adds no parameter meaning. The color parameter is already documented in the schema, while the required name parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the 50% schema coverage is not compensated.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Create a label.' This clearly separates it from sibling operations like list_labels, create_mailbox, or create_contact, and the scope line adds a permission signal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'tag:write'. The intended use is only implied by the resource name and sibling context.

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