Add Label To Card

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a label to a card' without explaining idempotency, behavior when the label is already attached, whether existing labels are overwritten, permission requirements, or failure modes. The mutation intent is clear, but deeper behavioral traits are not disclosed.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, making it easy to parse. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 two-parameter operation with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it relies heavily on the tool name and omits behavioral context and usage guidance. It covers the essential 'what' but not the 'when' or 'with what caveats', leaving an agent to infer edge-case behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The names cardId and labelId are self-explanatory, and the description echoes the relationship between them, but it does not clarify ID formats, referential constraints, or outcome for invalid inputs. It therefore falls short of compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a label to a card'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like remove_label_from_card or create_label, but the operation itself is unambiguous and free of tautology.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the label must already exist or that this creates an association, nor does it reference the inverse remove_label_from_card operation. The sibling list contains relevant alternatives, but the description leaves all routing to inference.

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