labels

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses nuances such as auto-resolved write plumbing, bulk-create behavior where a failed entry doesn't abort the batch, and the write-specific rename flow with dryRun. It also clarifies safety constraints about which label file to target, going well beyond the structured fields.

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 long but well-structured with bullet points per action, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential value for a complex multi-action tool. It is slightly dense but appropriately so given the tool's breadth.

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?

With 15 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers all actions, their inputs, edge cases, and points to get_knowledge for overrides. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the role of 'action', the alias relationship between list/list-files and info, the array form of query for search, the bulk create labels[] with shared top-level fields, and the dryRun flag. It also mentions createIfMissing which is not even present in the schema, thereby enriching the parameter model.

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 it is a unified label operations tool covering read and write actions, and enumerates each action (search, info, create, update, rename) with specific semantics. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing exclusively on label files and related operations.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided for each action, including when to use createIfMissing=true ('one call, no search first'), recommending dryRun=true for rename first, and imposing constraints like never adding a model prefix or never targeting an extension label file. It also points to get_knowledge for override plumbing, offering an alternative source of detail.

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