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

The description explicitly discloses two key behavioral aspects: that active runs are interrupted first and that the response includes the number of deleted cases and IDs of stopped runs. This goes beyond the annotations (which already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior) to provide concrete details about side effects and return values, giving full transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and succinctly adds the important details about interruption and return values. It is concise without omitting critical information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation, the description provides sufficient context: it states what it does, the side effect on runs, and what it returns. There is no output schema, but the description covers the return contents. This is complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter (queue_id as a UUID with a description), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, and per the guidelines, the baseline for high schema coverage is 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 queue') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from other delete tools by explicitly mentioning the queue and its associated runs. It also provides additional context about side effects and returns, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies the primary use case (deleting a queue) and highlights an important side effect (interrupting active runs) that would inform a user's decision. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use this operation, leaving some implicit context.

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