Create MCP Gmail sidebar labels if missing

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It conveys that the tool creates labels and implies it is safe to run even if labels exist (by saying 'create... if missing'). It mentions potential auth issues but does not discuss idempotency, rate limits, or exact permissions needed beyond gmail.modify.

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 reasonably concise, with two sentences explaining purpose and a second paragraph for usage guidance. However, the second paragraph includes a npm command and additional details that slightly reduce conciseness. Overall efficient.

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?

Given no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the description covers main use and a specific troubleshooting case. It lacks information about return values, error handling, or what happens when labels already exist. It is minimally complete for a simple setup tool but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It only states 'Pass accountAlias / chatScope like other Gmail tools,' which provides no independent explanation of what these parameters represent or their format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter usage without external context.

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 clearly states the tool creates specific Gmail user labels (FOLLOW_UP_GMAIL_LABEL_*, GMAIL_REVIEW_GMAIL_LABEL_*) using the Gmail API. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on label setup, not fetch, send, or other operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: if labels did not appear after connect or fetch, and even provides troubleshooting for missing gmail.modify scope. It does not, however, compare directly to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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