unlabel

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation (removing labels) but does not describe behavior for nonexistent labels, idempotence, permission requirements, or whether only the specified labels are removed.

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 filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds valuable parameter format information without bloating the text.

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 is adequate for a simple operation and an output schema exists, but with no annotations and three required parameters it could state more explicitly which labels are affected and how account/thread IDs are resolved.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'labels' by specifying 'comma-separated names or ids', but 'account' and 'thread_id' formats are left implicit.

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 ('Remove'), names the resource ('a thread'), and names the target ('labels'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'label', which has the opposite purpose.

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 intended use is implied by the action: use this when removing labels from a thread. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer the sibling 'label' or other thread-manipulation tools.

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