vk_put_labels_de9ad1e5fe26

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions authentication requirement and parameter alias handling, but contradicts the schema by calling the body 'optional' when the schema lists it as required. It also does not disclose return behavior or side effects of creation.

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 relatively compact but redundant: 'Create a label' and 'Creates a new label' duplicate the same idea. It could be tightened without losing content, though it is not overly 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?

For a simple create tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers basic usage but omits expected response details and fails to resolve the body optionality conflict. It also leaves the relationship to similar tools ambiguous, making it incomplete for an agent deciding between alternatives.

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?

The description adds helpful parameter context ('JSON request payload', 'camelCase and snake_case aliases'), but it incorrectly labels the body as optional and mentions 'path and query parameters' that are not present in the schema (which has additionalProperties false). This causes confusion about the actual accepted parameters.

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 label' with a specific verb and resource, and identifies as a raw proxy for PUT /labels. It distinguishes from sibling vikunja_create_label by emphasizing its low-level REST proxy nature, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 implies use for direct REST access to the Vikunja API but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It offers procedural details like passing the JSON payload in the body field and top-level parameter handling, but these are not usage selection guidelines.

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