GO TO is widely considered a bad choice, and COME FROM seems to be the same thing with tags and commands switched around. But what if you required both? In confirmation, you'll never see a label without any indication as to how it relates to the rest of the code. Instead, jump labels are written a follows:

:<label> [GOESTO <optional label to jump to>] [COMESFROM <comma-separated list of labels to accept a jump from>]

Jump attempts that fail confirmation generate error stream output, but otherwise are ignored, though an IFERROR command could be used to check whether the last command failed or not.

The ability to jump back to a saved location would be nice, though I'm not sure if it would best be done with a changeable label variable or a special "Go Back" command. It depends on whether labels are names or numbers, and whether any other modes of branching are available.

Instead of simply making the rest of the language frustratingly minimal, I think it would be nice to make it frustratingly error-(det/corr)ection happy. For instance, there could be redundant functions: That is, each function is implemented multiple times, each in a different sub-language, with the results passed to a bitwise majority voting or averaged together or something. Aside from jumps and function calls, sub-languages should be radically different from each so as to make sure each version of the function is individually devised and written. Commands outside of functions should be limited to ensure such functions are needed for Turing-completeness.