delete_label

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds critical context: it 'changes or removes remote GitLab data and may be irreversible,' requires 'the necessary project or group permission,' and 'returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors.' This goes beyond the annotations by describing irreversibility, authorization needs, and error types, which helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and safety caution. The second sentence packs usage and behavioral guidance into one clause, and the third gives parameter instructions. It is reasonably concise, though the final sentence's generic 'use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented' is slightly redundant and could be trimmed without losing value.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, behavioral consequences (irreversibility, permissions, errors), and parameter guidance. It does not describe return values, but none are specified, and the description adequately prepares the agent to call the tool safely. A minor omission is not specifying that the label must exist, but that is implicit in deletion operations.

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% for both required parameters, so the schema already explains project_id and label_id. The description's advice to 'provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema' repeats this information without adding new meaning. It also mentions 'project_id or group_id' even though group_id is not in the schema, slightly muddying parameter semantics. Overall, it adds little beyond the schema, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Delete a label from a project') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_labels, get_label, create_label, and update_label by focusing exclusively on deletion and explicitly instructing to use get/list tools first for inspection. This makes the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this only after verifying the target; choose a get or list tool first when you need to inspect state without changing it.' This directly contrasts with inspection tools and sets a clear precondition. It also mentions permission requirements, giving further practical context for when it is appropriate to invoke.

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