create_label

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

The description discloses that the tool 'Signs and broadcasts an on-chain transaction', which is a key behavioral trait beyond creation. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden and provides useful context about cost/confirmation time.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: usage context, behavioral trait, return value, required params, and sibling references. Front-loaded with 'Use this when...'.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return value (label ID). It covers purpose, usage, required params, and on-chain behavior. However, it lacks error handling or idempotency details, which would make it more complete for a creation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description restates required vs optional parameters and gives a color example (hex code like 'FF0000'), adding minimal 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 clearly states the tool is for creating a label to organize issues in a repository, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing 'See also: list_labels, delete_label'.

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 begins with 'Use this when you need to create a new label', directly stating usage context. It also mentions signing an on-chain transaction, implying it's a write operation, and references siblings for alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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