google_gmail_labels_createCreate custom Gmail labels to organize emails. Control label and message list visibility with optional settings.
Create a custom Gmail label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Label name. | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| labelListVisibility | No | e.g. labelShow or labelHide. | |
| messageListVisibility | No | e.g. show or hide. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.30Does 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. It only states the action 'create' without mentioning potential side effects, idempotency (what happens if the label already exists), permission requirements, or the nature of the response. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core action. There is no redundancy or fluff, and it front-loads the purpose.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not disclose return values, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., duplicate labels), nor any account context (the 'account' parameter is not mentioned in the description). An agent would lack necessary behavioral context to call this tool confidently.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond stating that a custom label is created. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters, but does not enrich understanding.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'custom Gmail label,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_gmail_labels_list and google_gmail_labels_delete. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's primary function, though it does not elaborate on what 'custom' implies.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., requiring a Gmail account) or constraints (e.g., label name uniqueness). An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.