create-label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the label is unique, error handling, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a label') and includes essential details without redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, 2 undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'PCE' stands for, the expected return value, error conditions, or how this tool fits into broader workflows (e.g., labeling workloads). For a creation tool in this context, more completeness is needed.

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 2 required parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning 'key' and 'value' are undocumented. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'key' relates to 'type' and 'value' is the label content, but it doesn't clarify what 'type' means (e.g., format, allowed values) or how these parameters interact. This doesn't adequately compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the action ('Create a label') and specifies the resource type ('of a specific type and the value in the PCE'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete-label' or 'update-label'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create-iplist' or 'create-ruleset' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a PCE connection (implied by sibling 'check-pce-connection'), or specify use cases like labeling workloads versus other resources. There's no explicit when-not-to-use advice or comparison with similar tools.

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