planka_add_card_label

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

No annotations provided. The description only states 'add' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether adding a duplicate label is ignored or throws error), authentication needs, or idempotency. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action. No unnecessary words. Could add a bit more context without being verbose.

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 simple tool, the description and schema cover basic usage. Missing information about error handling, prerequisites (label must exist, card must exist), and return value. Sibling tools provide some context.

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 tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema already provides (both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema). With 0% schema description coverage in the tool description, it fails to compensate, but the schema descriptions themselves are sufficient.

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 'Add a label to a card' clearly states the action (add) and resources (label and card), distinguishing it from sibling tools like planka_remove_card_label (remove) and planka_create_label (create).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The label_id parameter description hints at using planka_get_workspace, but no direct comparison to other tools is provided.

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