create_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'create' and the placement 'a folder under Labels/', which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose any side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. It is minimal but adequate for a simple create operation, but not rich enough to cover all behavioral aspects.

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 with zero wasted words. It states the operation and a structural detail in an efficient manner. No superfluous information or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool is a simple creation with two parameters and an output schema exists, the description is still incomplete. It lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, and does not explain the account parameter or potential duplicate-handling behavior. An agent could call it incorrectly if it assumes defaults or naming conventions not covered here. The description is insufficient for a non-trivial tool with no annotation support.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention the 'name' parameter, the optional 'account' parameter, or their formats/meanings. The agent is left to guess what values to provide, which is a significant gap given zero parameter documentation in 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 the specific verb 'create' and resource 'ProtonMail label', and even clarifies that it creates a folder under Labels/. This is a clear, unambiguous statement of purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_label, which could be ambiguous, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_label or create_mailbox. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when this tool is preferred. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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