planka_set_card_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses a notable behavior: 'Reports what actually landed on the card, verified by re-reading it,' revealing a post-operation verification step. Yet it does not mention whether the change is idempotent, how errors on invalid label IDs are handled, or whether it merges or replaces the label set—though the schema's add/remove semantics imply merging. Thus it is partially transparent but incomplete.

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 and well-structured: two short sentences that front-load the core action, then provide a key input caveat, and finally disclose the verification behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 4 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input source for IDs, and post-action verification. It omits edge cases like error handling or behavior when no labels are specified, and it does not explicitly state the return value, but the verification note implies a response. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds valuable semantic guidance beyond the schema by directing the agent to use label IDs from planka_get_board rather than names, and by implicitly clarifying the behavior of addLabelIds vs removeLabelIds through the description's 'add or remove' phrasing. This compensates for any potential ambiguity about the alias relationship, which is already in 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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Add or remove labels from a card') and adds crucial specificity by instructing to pass label IDs from the board rather than names, referencing planka_get_board. This differentiates it from sibling tools like planka_manage_labels, which likely handles label definitions, by focusing on card-level assignment.

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 gives an explicit operational guideline: 'Pass label IDs from the board (planka_get_board lists them), not label names.' This tells the agent exactly what input to fetch and how to structure the call. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as planka_manage_labels, leaving some comparison implied rather than stated.

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