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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond them: only terminal entries are eligible, and the operation neither executes nor cancels active tasks. It stops short of stating irreversibility, batch limits, or what a version mismatch does.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation clause following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and routing adequately. It leaves unstated what happens on a stale expectedVersion and the significance of the idempotencyKey for retries, though the schema covers the latter.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description's 'recorded IDs and versions' loosely maps to queueItemId/expectedVersion and hints at optimistic concurrency, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. 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 (delete) and a precisely scoped resource (terminal queue-history entries) rather than generic 'delete'. The second sentence explicitly separates it from cancel_queue_item, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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 an explicit when-not ('this tool does not execute or cancel an active task') and names the correct alternative (cancel_queue_item) for active work. Routing is unambiguous.

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