generate_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that the tool saves a PNG to 'out_dir', defaults to an environment variable or current directory, resolves identifiers differently based on 'kind', and returns the saved file path. This goes well beyond a bare action statement, though it does not mention file overwrite behavior or error conditions.

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?

Three sentences efficiently front-load the purpose, then cover parameters and behavior. Every clause adds value: what is produced, where it is saved, how identifiers are interpreted, and the return value. No filler or redundant content.

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 is largely complete for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema: it explains parameter semantics, defaults, and return value. It lacks explicit notes on file naming, overwriting, or error handling, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains 'kind' with its enum values, 'identifier' semantics per kind ('name or slug' vs 'assetId'), and 'out_dir' default behavior. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Save a printable Homebox label PNG (QR + readable name)' for a location or item, including a concrete use case ('stick on a tote/bin'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'qrcode' by describing both QR and readable name, and it specifies the supported kinds.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: generating printable labels for locations, items, or assets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case and identifier resolution guidance make the intended usage clear.

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