client_addOrRemoveLabels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'change labels', implying a mutation, but does not explain effects like whether existing labels are replaced, how empty arrays behave, or whether specific permissions are needed. There is no information about response, errors, or idempotency.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity; still, the structure itself is efficient, earning a high score.

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 description is inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain return values, operational semantics (add vs remove), or expected behavior. The presence of similar sibling tools increases the need for contextual detail, which is entirely absent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which itself has minimal descriptions ('Array of chat IDs', 'Array of label IDs'). It does not clarify how these arrays interact (e.g., which action is taken on which chats) or whether the action is additive or destructive.

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 'Change labels in chats' identifies a general action (change) and resource (labels), but it is vague and does not specify whether labels are added, removed, or both. The tool name implies add/remove, but the description relies on that inference. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'chat_changeLabels', which likely performs a similar function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'client_getChatLabels' and 'chat_changeLabels', the lack of any usage direction leaves the agent unsure about choosing this tool.

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