apply_fit_check_to_labels

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

With no annotations, the description should reveal behavioral traits. It states 'tag' but does not mention idempotency, side effects on existing labels, or required permissions. The operation's impact is under-specified.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse, sacrificing important details about parameters and usage.

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?

While the action is simple, the parameter 'cluster_slug' is not documented, and no output schema is provided in the description. The tool's role among siblings is not clarified, making it incomplete for reliable 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 input schema has one parameter (cluster_slug) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain this parameter or how it relates to the action, leaving the agent unable to correctly populate it.

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 'Tag papers rejected by fit-check as deprecated' clearly specifies the action (tagging as deprecated) and the scope (papers rejected by fit-check). It distinguishes from generic labeling tools by tying to the fit-check workflow.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fit_check_apply or manual tagging. No context about prerequisites or sequence is given.

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