remove_issue_label

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

Discloses that the tool takes an id (not name), errors if label absent, and requires the id from list_labels. For a simple removal without annotations, this adequately covers behavioral traits like idempotency (not stated but implied destructive). No auth or rate limit info, but acceptable for this scope.

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 sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action 'Remove ONE label from an issue'. Every sentence adds essential information: id vs name, source, and error condition.

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, the description covers key aspects: input requirements, error case, and source of id. It does not explain success return value, but for a removal tool this is acceptable. Sibling differentiation is adequate.

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 clarifying that the id parameter is numeric (not name), where to obtain it, and that it is a required integer from list_labels. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 it removes one label from an issue, specifying the use of label id (not name) and referencing sibling tool list_labels for obtaining ids. It effectively differentiates from siblings add_issue_labels, clear_issue_labels, and replace_issue_labels by emphasizing 'ONE label'.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (remove a single label) and how to get the required id (from list_labels). Mentions error condition if label is not on issue. Does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the 'ONE label' phrasing subtly implies alternatives for batch operations.

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