add_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not clarify whether labels are added or replaced, if any permissions are needed, or what happens on error (e.g., missing issue).

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 extremely concise (7 words), front-loaded, and to the point. However, it sacrifices behavioral detail, but as a structure, it is 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 the tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on side effects, error conditions, or expected behavior beyond the basic action.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Add labels to an existing issue' uses a specific verb ('add'), identifies the resource ('labels'), and specifies the target ('existing issue'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'list_issues'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'create_issue'.

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