ghost_add_member_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'append,' which implies additive behavior, but it does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid member ID, duplicate labels), permissions required, or whether existing labels are preserved. The description is minimal and leaves important behavioral unknowns.

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 that front-loads the action ('Append') and resource ('labels to an existing member'). No extraneous information, making it easy to scan.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on when to use it, error behavior, and idempotency. It is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the implications of calling this tool, especially for a write operation.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (id as Member ID, labels as Labels to add with an example). The description adds the context of segmentation but no additional constraints or format details. Given 100% schema coverage, the description adds limited value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('labels to an existing member') with the purpose ('for segmentation'). It distinguishes from siblings like ghost_update_member (which updates multiple fields) and ghost_delete_member (deletes). An agent can immediately know what this tool does and when to reach for it.

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 implies this tool is for adding labels only, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus ghost_update_member or other member-related tools. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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