remove_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action itself without mentioning side effects, reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap, similar to the 'update_drive' calibration example.

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 sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb 'Remove'. It is concise, with no wasted words, and the parenthetical '(account required)' is a small but useful emphasis. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (3 required parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description sufficiently explains the action for an agent to select it. However, the lack of any behavioral details beyond the operation itself, and the absence of annotations, leaves some context unaddressed, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (account, message_ids, label_ids). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with the resource 'labels from messages', clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It also notes the scope 'in one account', distinguishing it from account-wide operations. The sibling tool 'add_labels' is the natural inverse, so there is no ambiguity.

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 the operation, implying it is for removing labels from messages, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'add_labels' and 'mark_as_read'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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