delete_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the key non-obvious behavioral trait — the deletion propagates to every task carrying the label. It does not mention irreversibility or error behavior when the label doesn't exist, but the global-destruction side effect is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second disambiguates from remove_label. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision facts: what is deleted, the global scope, and the sibling distinction. Omissions like return value and behavior for nonexistent labels are low-stakes given the tool's simplicity.

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 sole required parameter label_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no explicit explanation of it. The meaning is nevertheless inferable from the parameter's self-explanatory name and integer type, and the description clarifies what effect applying the ID has, so the gap is minor.

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?

States a specific verb (delete), resource (a label), and scope ('everywhere... every task that has it'), which precisely defines the operation. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling remove_label, so an agent can distinguish them without opening any schema.

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?

Directly names the alternative (remove_label) and states the selection condition: use this tool when the label itself should be destroyed everywhere, use remove_label when detaching it from just one task. That is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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