vk_put_tasks_5a1099bfe4b5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does disclose authentication and permission requirements, but it incorrectly states the body field is optional while the schema marks it as required. This misstatement about a critical behavioral aspect undermines trust and makes the description misleading.

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 short but contains redundancy: 'Add a label to a task' appears twice. It also mixes implementation details (raw proxy) with usage instructions. The structure is functional but not polished, with some wasted repetition.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, auth, and permission requirements, but leaves gaps: it does not explain the response format, error conditions, or what the label object should contain. The misleading 'optional body' statement also detracts from completeness.

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% with basic descriptions for both parameters. The description adds useful info about aliases and top-level fields, but it also introduces an error by calling the body optional. The added value is moderate, but the contradiction with the schema reduces confidence. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool adds a label to a task and identifies it as a raw REST proxy for PUT /tasks/{task}/labels, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling tool vikunja_add_label_to_task, which performs the same action, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 useful context: it mentions write-access requirement, authentication, and how to pass parameters (top-level fields, aliases). It implies the raw proxy nature, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the typed vikunja_add_label_to_task, nor does it give exclusions. Clear context without explicit alternatives.

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