jira_label_remove

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

With no annotations, the description explains the incremental nature (leaves other labels untouched) and the return format `{status: ok}`, adding useful context beyond the action itself. However, it does not mention failure modes, permissions, or partial success behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key invariant, and contains no unnecessary words. It also includes a helpful reference to the CLI equivalent.

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 mutation tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return format and a behavioral guarantee (other labels untouched), making it quite complete. It could mention error handling but is otherwise sufficient.

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% with detailed descriptions for both key and labels. The description adds the 'one or more' clarification, but the schema already carries the full parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove' and the resource 'labels from a JIRA issue', and specifies the incremental behavior that distinguishes it from other label operations. It is specific and 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?

The description implies usage for removing specific labels while preserving others is appropriate, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like jira_edit or jira_label_add. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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