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

Annotations already declare the tool to be destructive, not read-only, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by specifying that the deletion is 'soft,' implying recoverability or non-permanent removal. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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, short sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action ('soft-delete') and the target object ('aggregation definition') immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers the core operation sufficiently. The only minor gap is that it does not explain the post-deletion state or whether soft-deleted definitions can be restored, but the term 'soft-delete' implies recovery and the annotations already cover destructiveness and idempotency.

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%, with both queue_id and definition_id documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema fully identifies each parameter's purpose, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Soft-delete') and the resource ('an aggregation definition'), which is specific and distinguishes it from other delete tools like deleteQueue, deleteQueueLabel, or deleteQueueJsonSchema. Even without comparing schemas, an agent can tell exactly what this tool operates on.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createQueueAggregation, listQueueAggregations, refreshQueueAggregation, or a hypothetical hard delete. It relies entirely on the tool name and the word 'delete' to imply usage, with no prerequisites or contextual conditions.

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