remove_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 does add useful context by specifying that the operation deletes the email's copy from the Labels/<name> folder and identifies the email by Message-ID. However, it does not mention idempotency, error behavior if the label is missing, permissions required, or effects on other messages.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds the critical behavioral detail in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given no annotations, no schema descriptions, and four parameters, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the core operation and the meaning of the two required parameters, but omits guidance on the optional account/mailbox parameters and any error or edge-case behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be explained.

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?

The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'uid' is a Message-ID and 'label' is a label name, which adds value. However, 'account' and 'mailbox' remain completely unexplained, leaving two of the four parameters semantically opaque.

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 verb 'Remove', the resource 'ProtonMail label from an email', and the mechanism 'deletes its copy from the Labels/<name> folder'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_label and delete_label, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a label needs to be removed from an email. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as delete_label or create_label, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is clear enough, but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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