todoist_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full CRUD operations' but does not detail permissions required, rate limits, side effects (e.g., what happens on delete), or response formats. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with multiple actions, leaving significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('label management for Todoist') and lists key operations. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the action parameter's role.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple mutation actions) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use in a CRUD context.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly, including descriptions and constraints (e.g., 'limit' with default 50, max 200). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying CRUD actions, which aligns with the 'action' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'label management for Todoist' with 'create, read, update, delete labels with full CRUD operations,' which specifies the verb (manage) and resource (Todoist labels) and indicates comprehensive functionality. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like todoist_filters or todoist_projects, which handle different Todoist resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like todoist_filters or todoist_projects, or within the tool itself for different actions (e.g., when to use 'create' vs 'list'). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for usage.

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