create_label

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the configuration prerequisite, which is genuine behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss. It says nothing about idempotency, duplicate-title handling, or what happens if the referenced group does not exist, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, the action and scope are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is called out separately. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the key gating prerequisite is stated. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented interaction between 'group' and 'new_group', which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already documents color format, group identification, and new_group semantics. The description only restates the group nesting idea and adds no detail about mutual exclusivity between 'group' and 'new_group' or about 'new_group_exclusive'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a label') and adds the nesting scope (existing or new label group), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby create_category sibling, which handles a similar-sounding concept, so it stops short of a 5.

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 supplies a real precondition — the Task Labels strategy must be enabled in Marvin — which tells the agent when this tool will work. It offers no guidance on choosing between 'group' and 'new_group' or against alternative creation tools, so usage is only partly covered.

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