gmail_create_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by noting 'Requires full scope', an auth requirement not present in the schema. However, it does not disclose return behavior, potential errors, or uniqueness constraints, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then optional settings, then a requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple create tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally mention what is returned (e.g., the created label) or any duplicate-label behavior. It covers the essential details but leaves these gaps.

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 schema fully documents all six parameters. The description groups some parameters as 'color and visibility settings', adding minimal semantic grouping but no unfamiliar detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Create a new Gmail label') and the resource (Gmail label), with optional color and visibility settings. This differentiates it from sibling tools like gmail_update_label and gmail_delete_label.

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 context for creating a new label, and the 'Requires full scope' gives a prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the create/update/delete sibling structure makes the use case obvious.

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