gh_create_label

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the tool is disabled unless MCP_GH_ALLOW_WRITE_COMMANDS=true and that MCP_GH_CONFIRM_WRITE_COMMANDS requires human approval by default. It also explains that force overwrites existing labels' color and description, which is critical behavioral context. This exceeds the annotation information without contradicting it.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a brief list of parameter clarifications, then an operational note about write permissions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema 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 that an output schema is present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the operational prerequisites (env var, human approval) and the edge-case behavior of force. A small gap is that it does not explicitly mention that creating a duplicate label without force would fail, but the force explanation implicitly covers this. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the two least obvious parameters: color (with a hex code example) and force (with its overwrite behavior). The remaining parameters (owner, repo, name, description) are self-explanatory from their names and the tool's purpose, so the description adds meaningful value for the non-obvious ones.

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 opens with 'Create a new label in a repository,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools gh_edit_label (modify) and gh_list_labels (read). It also explains the unique behavior of the force parameter, reinforcing the tool's purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like gh_edit_label, nor does it mention situations where creation might fail (e.g., duplicate label without force). However, the action verb 'create' makes the primary use case obvious, and the force parameter explanation implies a distinction from editing.

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