label_remove

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action itself, disclosing nothing about error behavior for invalid keys, reversibility/undo, whether the operation is destructive to associated audio, or what a successful removal returns. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a real gap.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by only the essential parameter detail. No filler, no repetition of schema structure. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter deletion tool, the core calling contract is covered: what it does, what the key looks like, and where to get it. However, it omits expected outcomes — success/failure behavior, side effects on audio, and whether removal is undoable. Adequate but with a clear behavioral gap.

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 must compensate — and it does. It explains the key's exact format ('trackId:itemId') and its provenance (label_list/label_add), which is precisely the information an agent needs to construct a valid argument. Strong parameter-level guidance despite 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Remove a label' — with a precise mechanism ('by its key'). The key-format detail and the action verb clearly separate it from siblings like label_add, label_edit, label_update_text, and the region-deletion tools. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Implies a workflow: obtain a key from label_list/label_add, then remove. However, it never explicitly distinguishes this from similar-sounding siblings such as label_delete_regions, label_delete_audio_at, or label_edit, nor states when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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