create_board_label

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

The description claims idempotency ('Idempotent by exact title'), but annotations set idempotentHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. This severely misleads the agent about the tool's 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 sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core function, then adds key behavioral details.

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 lacks context about which board the label belongs to (no board id in schema). It mentions idempotency but doesn't clarify behavior for non-exact matches. Output schema exists, so return values are covered.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining idempotency based on title and fallback category. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description provides context on how parameters interact.

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 tool creates a board label definition for board cards. It distinguishes from siblings like create_label, update_board_label, and delete_board_label by specifying it's for board cards and idempotent.

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?

It says when to use (create a board label) and provides idempotency and fallback behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for updating an existing label, use update_board_label instead).

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