linear_createTeamLabel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation, and the description's 'Create' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as potential side effects (e.g., uniqueness constraints on label names), required auth scopes, or idempotency implications. Given annotations cover the basic safety profile, the absence of any extra disclosure yields a score of 2.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It does not front-load critical information about required parameters or usage; it simply restates the obvious. It earns its place minimally by clarifying the resource 'label for a team', but could be more useful with a bit more context.

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 create operation with 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the label in the context of a team, mention that teamId is required, or clarify the optionality of parentId and description. While the schema covers parameter definitions, the description fails to provide any operational context that would help an agent decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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 100%, so all five parameters (name, color, teamId, parentId, description) have their own descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is maintained. No additional parameter semantics are provided in the description.

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 'Create a new label for a team' states a specific verb (create) and resource (label for a team), which is clear and distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like linear_getTeamLabels. It is not a tautology since it adds the 'for a team' qualifier that the name implies but doesn't state. Slightly more detail about the label's scope could push it to 5, but this is sufficient.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that a team must exist, any constraints on label names, or that this is the correct tool for creating a label as opposed to linear_createIssueLabel (which is used for adding labels to issues). No context is given for when a create operation is appropriate.

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