zoho_remove_all_labels_from_emails

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds real value by disclosing scope ("every label") and the either/or targeting constraint, but says nothing about auth requirements, reversibility, or whether labels are stripped across all folders.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the targeting rule. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key targeting decision adequately. It leaves the folderId/isFolderSpecific interaction (noted in the schema comment "then folderId is required") unexplained, which is a minor but real gap.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the relationship between messageId and threadId ("give one of the two"), which the schema does not state, but it adds nothing for folderId or isFolderSpecific, leaving part of the parameter set under-explained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Remove every label from emails") and explains the targeting split between messageId and threadId. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling zoho_remove_all_labels_from_threads, but the sibling is never named explicitly, keeping it just 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?

"give one of the two" communicates the mutual-exclusivity rule for messageId/threadId, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no when-to-use vs alternatives framing (e.g. versus the thread-scoped sibling or versus a partial label-removal tool), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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