create_prompt_label

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (write operation), not destructive, and open world. The description adds that it returns the new label id and does not assign to any versions. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but could mention if there are any side effects on existing labels or other entities.

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 purpose, and every word adds value. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure but mentions the id. It covers scope requirement, lack of assignment, and optional color. For a creation tool with 5 parameters, this is sufficiently 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 covers all parameters with descriptions. The description adds that either organisation_id or workspace_id is required (though schema marks only name as required), which is a critical constraint. It also clarifies that color_code is optional and defaults to a default color. This adds meaning 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 clearly states 'Create a prompt label' and gives concrete examples like 'production, staging, or experiment'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that it does not assign the label to any versions yet, which sets it apart from assignment or update actions.

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 specifies that either organisation_id or workspace_id is required to set scope, providing clear guidance on parameter usage. It also notes that the label is not assigned to versions, implying a subsequent step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_prompt_label.

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