create_label

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses duplicate name error and return value (label with id). However, it does not mention access requirements or side effects (e.g., write permission needed).

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 brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action 'Create a label'. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description explains key constraints and return value. However, it omits explanation for default behavior of 'repo' and 'owner' (only in schema), and lacks error scenarios beyond duplicate name.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'name' must be unique, 'color' accepts optional '#', and mentions defaults for 'repo' and 'owner' (from environment). This enriches beyond schema.

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 'Create a label' and provides specific details about required fields (name unique, color format). It differentiates from siblings like 'update_label' and 'add_issue_labels' by focusing on creation.

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?

While the description notes uniqueness constraint and color format, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'update_label' for modification). Usage context is implied but not stated.

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