label_add

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the cursor/selection targeting behavior, but omits mutation details (e.g., whether it creates point vs. range labels), return values, error conditions, or side effects like label ID generation.

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?

Extremely concise with no redundant sentences. The Args: format is slightly structural but acceptable. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter tool with no output schema, covering the essential operation and parameter. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should disclose what constitutes success/failure or the effect of adding duplicate labels.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by identifying 'text' as 'Label text' with its default value, providing basic semantic meaning. However, it lacks detail on text constraints, formatting, or the semantic difference between empty and non-empty labels.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (Add), resource (label), and location context (current cursor position or selection). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling `label_add_at` which presumably requires explicit time parameters.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like `label_add_at` or `track_add_label`. While 'cursor position' implies interactive usage, the agent receives no explicit guidance on choosing between label addition methods.

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