Remove Label

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a real side effect the agent could not otherwise know: a label no longer used by any page vanishes from the workspace entirely. It also adds a version prerequisite. It stops short of covering idempotency or what happens when the label is not attached to the page.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the version gate. Nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action, its cascade effect and a version requirement. Only edge behavior (label not present, repeat calls) is left implicit, which is minor for a two-parameter 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 coverage is 100%, so 'page' (id/slug/URL) and the 'label' naming pattern are already fully documented. The description adds no format or resolution semantics beyond that baseline.

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 first sentence pairs a specific verb (Remove) with a specific resource (a label from a page), which cleanly separates it from add_labels and list_labels. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance; the agent must infer that this is the counterpart to add_labels. The Docmost 0.90+ prerequisite is a useful precondition but is not routing guidance.

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