vikunja_create_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new label' and does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, though it could benefit from a brief expansion on usage or output details without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or any relevant post-conditions. It does not. Given the tool's simplicity (three parameters) and low complexity, the description is minimally viable but lacks the completeness needed for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (title, hex_color, description) clearly. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema is complete, a baseline score of 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 'Create a new label' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action of creating a label. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vikunja_list_labels and vikunja_delete_task without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vikunja_add_label_to_task or vikunja_list_labels. The description lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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