Create a new label within an Arca workspace to categorize tasks. Provide the workspace ID and label name, with an optional color for visual organization.
Create a new label in a workspace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Label name | |
| color | No | Color value | |
| workspace_id | Yes | The workspace ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a label is created, a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or behavior if a label with the same name already exists. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.
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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and object. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices explanatory depth.
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?
For a simple create operation with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient, but the absence of usage routing, behavioral notes, and output information leaves gaps that annotations would normally fill. An agent can infer the basic call from the schema, but the description alone does not provide a complete picture.
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?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond what is already documented. It only reinforces the workspace context, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('label') scoped to a workspace, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_label and delete_label. There is no ambiguity about what action is performed or what object is affected.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_label or delete_label, nor does it mention conditions like label existence or required prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the verb, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.