label_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it explains the implementation mechanism (selecting the label's span and split-deleting), the side effects (collateral destruction of contained labels that get re-added, partial overlaps trimmed), and reassurances (audio tracks never in selection, nothing shifts in time). This is unusually rich behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then organized into clear paragraphs covering mechanism, edge cases, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args section cleanly documents the single parameter. No waste; well-structured for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description fully addresses operation semantics, edge cases (collateral deletion, partial overlap trimming), the workaround mechanism (no native Audacity command), and the alternative for audio deletion. For a single-parameter tool in a large sibling set, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 0% (the schema only says 'index' is an integer), so the description must compensate. It explains the index as a 'Flat label index from label_list,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be slightly more detailed (e.g., whether it's zero-based), but the reference to label_list provides enough semantic anchor. Given 1 param at 0% coverage, this is strong compensation.

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 'Delete a single label without touching the audio' — a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tool label_delete_audio_at by explicitly noting the difference (delete label only, not the audio under it). The mention of no audio tracks in selection further clarifies scope.

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 explicitly tells the agent where to get the index ('Get the index from label_list') and names the alternative tool for deleting label+audio (label_delete_audio_at). It also gives detailed exclusion guidance around collateral effects on overlapping labels, which is important for deciding among label siblings.

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