Create a new Gmail label by name, including nested labels using '/' separators.
Create a new Gmail label (drawer -> Create label).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Label name. Use '/' for nesting as in Gmail ('Parent/Child'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a mutation tool it discloses nothing about duplicate-name handling, required account/permission state, whether the created label is returned (ID/name) for later use, or that it drives the Gmail UI rather than an API.
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?
A single tight sentence with an action-oriented, front-loaded verb. Nothing is wasted, though the UI path hint is of limited utility to an agent selecting among tools.
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 simple one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks return-value expectations and duplicate/permission behavior that an agent would need when the mutation's effects matter.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage including the '/' nesting convention. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 new Gmail label') and the parenthetical UI path ('drawer -> Create label') confirms it is a creation operation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from gmail_rename_label/gmail_delete_label/gmail_labels but never names them.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'create' and the UI path, but the description gives no explicit context for when to use this versus gmail_labels (to check existing labels) or gmail_rename_label (if one already exists). No prerequisites or edge-case guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.