Create label

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a non-destructive write operation. The description adds that it is 'for organizing posts or media files', which provides some context, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the label is immediately usable, any ownership constraints, or if names must be unique). Given minimal annotation coverage, the description partially carries the burden but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Create a new label'), and the second sentence immediately offers usage guidance. 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 creation tool with three parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the what and when adequately. It could mention that the operation returns the created label or confirm success, but since no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explain any prerequisites or error conditions, though these are not strictly required.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (name, type, color) with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('Create a new label'), and clarifies the domain ('for organizing posts or media files'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_label and delete_label. The explicit use-case statement ('Use this when the user wants a new label/tag') reinforces its purpose.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('Use this when the user wants a new label/tag'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., update_label, delete_label), but the phrase 'new label' implies a creation context, making it adequate without being exhaustive.

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