Conversation Labels: Add Labels

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false), and the description goes further by disclosing the replace semantics (existing labels are lost), the auth requirement (User API key in an api-access-token header), and the endpoint/extra_body mechanics. This is real context beyond the structured fields. Note a mild tension: a full replace is naturally idempotent, yet idempotentHint=false — not strong enough to call a contradiction, but worth flagging.

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?

Purpose and the replace constraint are front-loaded, followed by the endpoint, auth, and body notes in a compact block. The trailing Persian/Arabic-Indic digit note is somewhat tangential but not excessively verbose. Every line is at least plausibly useful.

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?

For a mutation tool with annotations present, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing elements: replace behavior, authentication, and endpoint context. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though explicit prerequisites or a counterpart-listing reference would make it fully complete.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces that 'labels' is the body field and that 'extra_body' carries additional JSON properties, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Set the labels of a conversation') and adds the crucial scope detail that it *replaces* existing labels rather than appending, which distinguishes it from a list or add operation. The only blemish is the title 'Add Labels' pulling in the opposite direction, though the description itself is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling list tool, but the resource noun makes the target clear.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never contrasts this with gapify_list_conversation_labels or gapify_set_contact_labels, nor does it state prerequisites for calling it. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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