label_thread

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks details on behavior such as whether labels are appended or replaced, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects on existing labels.

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 a single short sentence, no waste, but it is under-specified. It earns a middle score for being concise yet lacking sufficient detail.

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 no output schema, 4 parameters (including optional credentials), and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, e.g., expected return or effects.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter (thread_id, labels, account, password). No format or constraints are given, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 verb 'add' and the resource 'labels to every message in a thread'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'label_message' (labels a single message) and 'unlabel_thread' (removes labels).

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 guidance on when to use, when not to use, or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or context compared to siblings like 'batch_modify_messages' or 'search_threads'.

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