Create Gmail labels for an account and use Parent/Child naming to nest them for organized message sorting.
Creates a label. Use "Parent/Child" to nest it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| account | Yes | Email address or label of the account (see list_accounts). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. Beyond that, the description discloses nothing about behavior: no statement on what happens if the label already exists, whether intermediate parent labels are auto-created, or whether the call is idempotent. The only added context is the nesting syntax, which is more naming convention than behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the one non-obvious formatting rule. There is no filler, hedging, or restatement of the title.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter write tool with annotations present and no output schema, so expectations are modest. Still, an agent reading this cannot tell whether re-creating an existing label errors or is a no-op, nor whether the created label is returned, which leaves a meaningful gap for a creation call in an account-scoped system.
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 50%: the account parameter is documented in the schema, but name has no description at all. The description partially compensates by explaining that name accepts a 'Parent/Child' path, which is real meaning beyond the schema; however it says nothing about uniqueness, depth limits, or what a bare name (no slash) does.
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 first sentence gives a specific verb plus resource ("Creates a label"), which is unambiguous and readable against siblings like list_labels, update_label, and create_filter. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from, so it stops short of a 5.
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 gives a formatting convention ("Use \"Parent/Child\" to nest it") but no guidance on when to create a label versus reusing one via list_labels, or when update_label is the right call instead. There are no stated preconditions, no mention of account selection being required, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.