add_label

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description aligns by saying 'Add'. It adds some context for rotation values but does not disclose other behavioral traits like file-modification side effects or error conditions. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, then a clear Args list. Every line adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a five-parameter tool.

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 simplicity, the description fully covers parameter semantics, optionality, and coordinate conventions. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. No prerequisites or complex behaviors are missing.

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 input schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description carries full burden. It explains text with examples, defines rotation degrees, and clarifies that schematic_path is optional. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment needed for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('net label') with positional context, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_global_label or add_hierarchical_label. It is unambiguous and precisely states the action.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_global_label or add_text. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer context.

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