planka_manage_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action types without explaining that the action parameter determines which IDs are required (boardId for create, labelId for update/delete), that delete is permanent, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action words.

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, concise sentence with no verbose filler. It front-loads the core verb and resource. While some might argue it is too terse for full completeness, the conciseness itself is exemplary; no words are wasted.

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 complexity—five parameters, an enum action, and conditional required fields—the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the action parameter drives the input requirements, nor does it mention return values or any usage context. An agent would need to inspect the schema carefully to understand the conditional logic, which a well-formed description should preempt.

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 itself does not elaborate on any parameter semantics—it merely repeats the action types. The conditional requirements (e.g., boardId for create, labelId for update/delete) are already encoded in the schema's descriptions, so the description adds no additional value beyond the schema.

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-resource combination: 'Create, update, or delete labels on a board.' It covers all three CRUD actions and clearly distinguishes from sibling tool planka_set_card_labels, which handles assigning labels to cards rather than managing label definitions. This is precise and immediately scopes the tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not mention that this is for managing label metadata (e.g., names, colors) as opposed to assigning labels to cards, nor does it reference any sibling tool. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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