Remove label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable provider-specific mechanics: ProtonMail removes the email from the label folder, while Gmail/IMAP removes a keyword flag. It does not contradict any annotation and explains what actually changes, though it omits auth needs and error behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence carries information about the operation's scope or provider behavior, with no filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the operation's effect across providers. It stops short of covering edge cases like removing a label that is not present or required permissions.

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 all four required parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove a label from an email') and scopes it to a single email, which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_label or add_label. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of the 5 calibration where a sibling is named.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as delete_label vs mark_email, and no prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, matching the MID calibration where a clear verb but no routing guidance earns a 2.

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