Create a new Gmail label by specifying its name and optional visibility settings for the label list and message list.
Create a new Gmail label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new label | |
| label_list_visibility | No | labelShow, labelShowIfUnread, or labelHide | |
| message_list_visibility | No | show or hide |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a new Gmail label.' It does not mention whether duplicate names cause an error, what happens with default visibility settings, or any permissions required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It could have included a note about get_or_create_label, but as a concise statement of purpose, it is well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description is too sparse: it lacks any usage guidance or behavioral notes, and the presence of get_or_create_label suggests an important distinction that is not mentioned. For a tool with several siblings and no annotations, this is incomplete.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It adds nothing beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 and resource ('Create a new Gmail label'), which clearly states the action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_or_create_label, which also creates labels when they don't exist, 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?
There is no guidance on when to use create_label instead of get_or_create_label or update_label. The single sentence only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.