gmail_create_label

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait (idempotency: returns existing label if one already has the name). However, it does not disclose other important aspects such as required permissions, side effects on existing labels with the same name, or how visibility parameters affect the operation. With no annotations, the description could do more.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral detail with no unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema and with only a brief description, the tool definition leaves significant gaps: no description of the return value, no explanation of how the existing label is returned, and no handling of error cases or prerequisites. Given the complexity (4 params, 2 enums) and lack of annotations, this is insufficient.

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 50% (only 'name' and 'account' are described). The description adds no further meaning for the 'label_list_visibility' and 'message_list_visibility' parameters, which are enum-based and not self-explanatory. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the action ('Create' or 'return existing') and the resource ('Gmail label'), and includes an important idempotent behavior. It is distinct from sibling tools like gmail_list_labels or gmail_create_filter.

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 implies usage when a label with a given name is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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