delete_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully warns that the operation is globally destructive and requires unsafe mode, but it does not clarify whether deletion is irreversible or what happens to notes that use the label, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two tight sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the critical safety caveat follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is mostly adequate, but it omits important context for a destructive operation: the full scope of destruction, irreversibility, or side effects on associated notes. A short additional sentence would make it complete.

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 single parameter label_id is self-explanatory from its name and schema title, but the description adds no parameter-level guidance. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, and it does not address how to obtain the ID or any format expectations.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('a label'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from siblings such as remove_label_from_note or delete_note.

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 an explicit prerequisite: UNSAFE_MODE=true, and explains why ('globally destructive'). This gives clear context about when the tool may be invoked, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as remove_label_from_note.

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