contacts_remove_label

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description need not restate them. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the call is gated on user approval. However, it says nothing about whether the removal is reversible, what happens if the label is absent, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The action is stated first and the constraint second.

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 output schema and two undocumented required parameters, the description is thin: an agent knows what to do and that approval is needed, but not how to properly populate resource_name/label_name or what the outcome of the call is.

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 only 33%: reason is described in the schema, but resource_name and label_name carry no description anywhere. The description provides no meaning for these two required parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap in a 3-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a label from a contact"), which is immediately distinguishable from contacts_add_label and contacts_update among the siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the inverse tool for differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus contacts_update (which may also alter labels) or contacts_add_label. The only contextual cue is "Requires user approval," which is a precondition, not usage routing.

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