Create Gmail Label

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the return value (ID, name, visibility settings) and nesting behavior, but does not disclose potential duplicate handling or error cases. This adds some context but is not extensive.

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 compact and well-structured with distinct sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every line serves a purpose and there is no redundant content.

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 simple one-parameter creation tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, the return value, and includes examples. No significant gaps are apparent.

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 already covers the single 'name' parameter with the same nesting description (100% coverage). The description's Args section repeats this information without adding new semantics such as uniqueness constraints or format details.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'a new user label (tag) in Gmail'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_list_labels and gmail_delete_label. Examples reinforce the purpose.

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 two 'Use when' examples that clearly indicate when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, relying on sibling tool names for that context.

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