label_add_at

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions the default empty value for text, but lacks disclosure on error handling (e.g., start > end), idempotency, what is returned, or whether the operation affects existing labels.

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 zero waste. The single-sentence purpose statement followed by the structured Args block front-loads critical information efficiently. No redundant or filler text present.

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 simple three-parameter tool, covering the basic inputs. However, without an output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (success indicator, label ID, etc.) or error conditions. Gaps remain regarding the result of the 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully documents all three parameters: specifies units for temporal parameters ('in seconds'), describes the text parameter purpose, and notes the default value. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the specific action (add), resource (label), and scope (at a specific time range). The mention of 'time range' effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'label_add' or 'track_add_label', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'label_add', 'track_add_label', or 'label_regular_intervals'. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., whether a project must be open or if time range validation applies).

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