vk_delete_labels_5f843a6b3e85

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses permission requirements ('user needs to be the creator'), body behavior ('does not usually require a request body'), parameter passing style ('top-level fields'), and alias conventions. It lacks idempotency or response details, but the key side effects and constraints are well covered.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then adding necessary details. It is slightly redundant: 'Delete a label' and 'Delete an existing label' repeat the same idea. Otherwise, each sentence contributes useful information about endpoint, permissions, body, and parameter conventions.

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 delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the endpoint, authentication, creator permission, body expectations, and parameter conventions. It does not specify the response format, but for a delete endpoint without an output schema, that is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for agent invocation.

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 100% (id described as 'Label ID Required'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context about parameter passing: 'Path and query parameters are top-level fields' and 'accept camelCase and snake_case aliases.' This clarifies how to provide the id beyond the schema's type definition, enriching the meaning.

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 'Delete a label' and identifies the exact endpoint 'DELETE /labels/{id}', making both the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the label resource, which is unique among the many vk_delete_* tools.

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 clear preconditions: the user must be the creator of the label and authentication is required. It implies usage by specifying this is for deleting labels, not for removing a label from a task (which is handled by vikunja_remove_label_from_task). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is adequate.

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