create_issue_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains parameter effects (color format, scope) but does not disclose side effects like duplicate handling or required permissions.

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?

Three focused sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds a specific detail: creation act, team/workspace scope, color format, and nesting.

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?

Key behavioral details are provided for non-obvious parameters, but workspace and description are omitted. Output schema exists but its content is unknown; still, the description could be more comprehensive.

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 0%, so description compensates for color, team_id, and parent_id. However, workspace and description parameters are not explained, leaving gaps for 2 of 6 parameters.

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 starts with 'Create a new issue label,' clearly specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_issue_labels' which lists labels.

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 specific usage guidance for parameters like team_id (team-scoped vs workspace-scoped) and parent_id (two-level hierarchy). It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the context is clear.

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