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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say that omitted fields are left unchanged, that null clears folder/description, or that renaming has uniqueness constraints. With annotations covering the basics, this lands at 2 rather than 1.

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?

At three words the text is short but not informative—it is under-specified rather than concise. No sentence earns its place because the single sentence merely echoes the tool name.

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 tool whose name field has cross-revision/versioning subtleties, the description leaves the agent without any behavioral framing. The rich schema and annotations partially compensate, but the description itself is far too thin to be considered complete.

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 each parameter (name, queue_id, folder_id, description) is thoroughly documented in the schema, including the null-to-clear and uniqueness semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

"Update a queue" restates the tool name and title without adding scope, effect, or distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as updateQueueLabel or updateQueueJsonSchemaSettings, nor does it say which queue properties are editable. This is effectively a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling update/delete/rename variants, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the queue_id or team/automation ownership. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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