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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by stating that deletion removes the queue 'with all its messages', quantifying the blast radius beyond the bare destructive flag.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the create/change case and appends the destructive case with its trigger. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 7-parameter configuration tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation modes and the destructive behavior adequately. It omits only marginal details like whether settings merge or replace on update.

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 the schema already documents every parameter and its bounds. The description adds a light semantic alias ('lease' for visibility_timeout_seconds) but no format or syntax beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a concrete resource (queue) and three distinct operations (create, change settings, delete), which lets an agent separate it from the message-level queue_* siblings like queue_put and queue_claim. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed operations, and the delete trigger is spelled out ('delete: true'). However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus queue_put/queue_claim/queue_status, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing instance.

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