create_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns label IDs). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could benefit from additional context. Every word earns its place, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how it interacts with the Todoist system. The agent lacks crucial information needed to use this tool effectively in production scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'personal labels' but doesn't explain the 'items' array parameter or its nested properties (name, order, color, is_favorite). While it implies batch creation through 'labels' plural, it provides no semantic context about parameter usage, constraints, or relationships between fields.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new personal labels in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_labels' and 'delete_labels' by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_projects' or 'create_tasks' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication needs), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_shared_labels' (which doesn't exist but might be relevant given 'get_shared_labels' and 'remove_shared_labels' siblings). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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