unmanned_add_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must self-disclose side effects. It implies a mutation ('add') and mentions the ambiguity risk, but does not state what happens on failure (e.g., error if not tier 1), whether the operation is reversible, or any other consequences. This is a gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence delivers the key constraint efficiently. No fluff, though the semicolon use could be clearer. Content-wise it 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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description must cover more ground. It addresses the alias uniqueness condition and tier requirement, but omits details like failure behavior, whether the alias is case-sensitive, and any other constraints. It is reasonably complete for a simple add operation but leaves some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to 'label' via the example ('e⁻') and explains its alias nature Toy example. However, 'entity_id' is only implied as the page identifier, with no further explanation of its format or required value. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 (

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 a decision-relevant condition (free aliases vs. tier 1 requirement for existing names) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites like having a page ID. It offers context but not a full usage guide.

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