Add Label

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by describing a non-destructive mutation. However, the description does not disclose permission requirements, idempotency, or behavior with duplicate labels. Since annotations already cover the core safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then uses a concise bullet list for use cases. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. Ideal size for a simple tool.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and usage context well for its low complexity. An output schema exists, so return values are defined. It could mention duplicate label behavior, but this is a minor gap and not critical for agent selection.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., page_id format with 'att' prefix, label name examples). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states the tool adds a label to Confluence content, specifying the resource types (pages, blog posts, attachments) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like confluence_get_labels or confluence_add_comment. The verb 'Add' and resource 'label' are concrete and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (categorizing attachments, tracking status, filtering) that give the agent clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple labeling tool.

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