Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that labels are created if they don't exist, which is useful context beyond basic 'add' functionality. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is an idempotent operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators).

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 - just two short sentences that communicate the core functionality and an important behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It covers the 'what' (adds labels, creates if missing) but misses the 'how' (permissions needed, error handling) and 'what next' (response format, success indicators). Given the complexity of GitHub operations, more behavioral transparency would be helpful.

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 schema already documents both parameters completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of issue_number, label naming conventions, or array size limits). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Add labels') and target ('to an issue or PR'), with the additional behavior of creating missing labels. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_list_labels' (which lists) and 'github_update_issue' (which may update other fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other GitHub mutation tools like 'github_add_comment' in terms of when to choose one over the other.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether to use this for bulk labeling vs. individual updates, or if there are prerequisites like repository permissions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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