manage_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral-transparency burden. It does add a useful non-obvious constraint: delete requires name. The contrast between list and delete signals read versus destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, or what the list action returns, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation-capable tool.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with a clear semicolon-separated structure. Every element adds value: the resource, the two actions, and the name requirement for deletion. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation requirements: which actions are available and when name is needed. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema lessens that need. The main gap is the lack of any relationship to sibling create_label, though this tool's own usage is still 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents the possible action values ('list', 'delete') and clarifies that name is required specifically for delete, which is the most important semantic detail given name is optional in the schema. It does not define what name represents beyond the delete context, but for a two-parameter tool this is mostly sufficient.

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 '标签管理' (label management) and then narrows the purpose by enumerating the supported actions: 'action=list 列出, action=delete 删除'. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that distinguishes the tool from the sibling create_label, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or state that creation is out of scope.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like create_label. It states the action values but not the situations that call for list versus delete, nor any exclusions such as 'use create_label for creating labels'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the action parameter.

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