Contract Testing: Add Label to Pacticipant

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

The description states 'Apply a label' (a write operation) but annotations include readOnlyHint=true, a direct contradiction. This severely misleads the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 short but includes a redundant parameter list that repeats schema information. It could be more concise by omitting the parameter section.

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 low complexity, the description fails to resolve the annotation contradiction, leaving the agent confused about the tool's mutability. Output schema is absent, but the primary gap is behavioral.

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 lists parameters with names and types but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., constraints, examples).

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 'Apply a label to a pacticipant,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract-testing_get_pacticipant_label and contract-testing_remove_label_from_pacticipant.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-to-use, or when-not-to-use. The sibling list provides context but no direct usage hints.

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