cigchat_subscriber_remove_labels_by_name

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method, a 20-label maximum, and the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which are useful operational details. However, it does not specify return values, error handling, idempotency, or behavior when labels are not found, leaving gaps for such a mutation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, limit, endpoint, and required scope. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds relevant information.

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?

Given there are only two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core operation but falls short on parameter semantics (especially user_ns) and side effects. The endpoint and scope are useful, but the missing explanation of the subscriber identifier makes it incomplete for autonomous use.

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 schema has no descriptions, and the description only partially compensates by indicating 'by label name' and the 20-label limit, which maps to the data array. The user_ns parameter is not explained anywhere, leaving its purpose (subscriber identifier) implicit. The array-of-objects structure inside data is also not clarified, so the agent may not know the expected input shape.

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 action ('Remove labels from subscriber'), the method ('by label name'), and a constraint ('up to 20 labels'). The inclusion of the DELETE endpoint and scope further clarifies intent. This distinguishes it from related tools like add_labels_by_name and remove_tags_by_name.

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 implies usage for removing labels from a subscriber based on label names, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative tools (e.g., remove_tags_by_name or removing labels by other means). It does state a prerequisite (Manage Flow scope) and a limit, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions. Context from sibling names is not leveraged to clarify the 'labels vs tags' distinction.

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