Create a label group

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the call is non-idempotent in a concrete way (calling twice creates two groups) and that activation triggers workers to start applying the label to new emails and meetings. These are real downstream side effects an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false alone.

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?

Front-loads the action and the example, then adds the duplicate-creation warning and activation behavior in short clauses. The final "Returns structuredContent {label}" sentence is mild redundancy since an output schema exists, but nothing else is wasted.

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 4-parameter create tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers action, duplicate risk, activation effect and return shape. It omits whether values can be added later via labels_update and any permission requirements, minor gaps given the surrounding structure.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, values, is_active and description. The description adds only an illustrative example of name plus values; it doesn't reinforce that the required description field drives worker classification. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Creates a classification label group with its values") and gives a concrete example (name Intent, values [Pricing, Support]). It is clearly distinguishable from heliyos_labels_list, which it routes to, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from heliyos_labels_update/delete.

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?

Gives a clear pre-condition ("check heliyos_labels_list first") to avoid duplicate groups and explains the activation condition under which workers apply the label. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use labels_update to add values to an existing group).

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