add_issue_label

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the mutation nature. No mention of permissions, side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), or error states. The idempotentHint=false suggests it may fail or create duplicates, but not addressed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear without 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?

No output schema, so return value is unspecified. While the description covers label creation if missing, it does not clarify behavior when labels already exist on the issue. Given low complexity, missing details on idempotency or error cases reduce completeness.

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% with descriptions for all parameters (project, identifier, label, color). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Add a tag/label') and the resource ('Huly issue'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_label (which creates a label without attaching) and remove_issue_label (which removes).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or contrast with similar tools like add_issue_relation or create_label.

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