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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description earns its keep by spelling out the blast radius: cases are cleared and in-flight runs are interrupted. It also explains the versioning behavior, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive consequence. The versioning sentence is slightly repetitive ('behaves the same whether or not... by revision') but each sentence carries 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?

For a two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the consequential detail an agent needs: what is destroyed, what happens to running work, and how it interacts with revisions. Only the explicit sibling routing is missing.

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% and both parameters (automation_id, case_queue_id) carry descriptions in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a queue from an automation, deleting the queue') and further pins down the semantics by equating it with a standalone queue delete. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the revision-scoped sibling by noting membership is not versioned, though it never names that sibling outright.

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 revision sentence hints at when this tool is the right choice versus a revision-scoped removal, but it never explicitly says 'use X instead when Y'. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, so the agent must infer the routing.

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