vk_post_tasks_7f5babc1ed99

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: unpassed labels are deleted, new labels are added, existing labels are untouched. It also states 'Authentication is required' and explains parameter handling, providing a complete safety and behavior profile.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value (behavior, payload, aliases, auth). Minor typo 'task..' but overall concise and structured logically.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, exact behavioral semantics, payload format, parameter aliases, and authentication. It is sufficient for an agent to select and correctly invoke the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: 'Pass the JSON request payload in the optional body field' and clarifies that path/query parameters are top-level fields with camelCase/snake_case aliases, which is not in 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 'Update all labels on a task' and explains the exact replace behavior, distinguishing it from individual add/remove label operations. It is specific about the resource (task labels) and the action (bulk update).

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 context for use: it replaces the entire label set, deleting unpassed labels and adding new ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., vikunja_add_label_to_task) or state when not to use it, leaving the distinction implicit.

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