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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what gets destroyed ('any queues not in the list will be unlinked'), the authorization requirement (edit permission on the agent), and a concrete post-call verification step — context that annotations cannot carry.

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 destructive replace semantic, then permission, then verification. Every sentence carries distinct operational value with no filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers semantics, prerequisites, and a verification path, which is nearly sufficient. It does not state what the call itself returns or how failures surface, a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 all five parameters, including the nuanced selected_automation_revision_id branching behavior, are already documented in the schema. The description restates the queue_ids replace semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (Replace) and resource (the set of queues linked to this build's case-queue integration slot), and the replace-vs-add semantics immediately distinguish it from sibling tools like addAutomationQueue and listRevisionIntegrationQueues. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditions for use (send the full desired list, unlisted queues are unlinked), a prerequisite (edit permission on the agent), and a follow-up verification call to getRevisionCaseQueueSetup. It does not name an explicit alternative (e.g. an add/remove-single-queue tool), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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