planka_create_label

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

No annotations provided. Description adds the behavioral trait 'idempotent by name' which is useful for understanding re-invocation safety. Lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling.

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 with no redundancy, efficiently conveying the core action and idempotency. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description lacks context for proper use. Missing usage scenarios, duplicate handling, and differentiation from numerous siblings. Incomplete for a creation tool.

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 description coverage is 0% (schema description is generic), and the tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema. The schema itself contains adequate descriptions for name, color, and board_id, but the tool description adds no extra semantic value.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Create a label on a board' with the idempotency trait. Distinguishes from siblings like planka_update_label and planka_delete_label by focusing on creation and idempotency.

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 when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The idempotency hint is useful but does not advise on when to prefer this over other label-related tools. Basic guidance is implicit but limited.

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