label_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it parses the file directly, skips and reports unparseable lines rather than failing, and adds labels via the same primitives as label_add_batch. It does not mention whether labels are appended to an existing track or whether a label track must already exist, but the stated behavior is more transparent than most.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose and file format. The v3 comparison is slightly extra but provides useful rationale for the implementation. Each part contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains format, error handling, and the parameter. Missing material details include whether an existing label track is required or created, whether import appends or replaces existing labels, and what the return value is.

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%, so the description compensates with an Args section specifying that 'path' is the absolute path to the labels text file. It also explains the file format earlier, giving the parameter meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Import labels from a standard Audacity label text file' and specifies the exact tab-separated format. It distinguishes itself from sibling label tools by explaining that it parses the file directly and uses the same primitives as label_add_batch, and from v3's ImportLabels command.

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 the tool is for file-based label import and explains why it exists (no C++ primitive in v4). However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like label_add, label_add_batch, or label_export, nor does it state when not to use it.

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