conversation_add_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely says 'Add Labels' without disclosing whether labels are appended or replaced, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions are required. The input schema does not include a conversation identifier, implying it is passed elsewhere, but this is not clarified. Behavioral traits are completely opaque.

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 extremely concise (two words) but sacrifices necessary information. It is under-specified, failing to convey the tool's purpose, behavior, or usage. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand what happens when the tool is invoked, what the target entity is, or what the result looks like. Critical context is missing.

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% as there is only one parameter, but its description is contradictory: 'Array of labels (comma-separated strings)' suggests each element is a comma-separated string, conflicting with the schema type 'array of strings'. The example shows individual labels. This adds confusion rather than clarity, offering marginal value beyond 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 'Add Labels' is vague; it does not explicitly state that labels are added to a conversation. While the tool name suggests the context (conversation), the description should clarify the resource being acted upon, especially since sibling tools like contact_add_labels exist. It is better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., contact_add_labels, list_all_labels_of_a_conversation), nor any prerequisites or context. The description offers no guidance for correct selection.

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