delete_policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — it reads the policy first so the recorded undo can re-create it exactly, and supports a dry-run preview. It omits failure modes (nonexistent policy, permissions, effect on bound queues).

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?

Front-loads the two most decision-relevant facts ([WRITE][risk=medium] and undo-recreates-it) before the parameter list. The Args block is terse and every line adds meaning rather than restating types.

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?

With no output schema, the description is responsible for the return contract and it covers the important part (undo re-creation). It stops short of describing error behavior or post-delete state, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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 0% (titles only), so the description carries the load and does so: vhost default '/', name sourced from list_policies, dry_run as preview, target defaulting to config. 'target' is explained only loosely ('from config'), leaving mild ambiguity.

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 ('Delete a rabbitmq policy') and immediately distinguishes the operation by noting the undo re-creates it. Against siblings like set_policy, list_policies, and delete_queue, the resource is unambiguous.

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 actionable context: 'Pass dry_run=True to preview' and tells the agent where to get the policy name ('from list_policies'). It does not, however, state when not to delete or how it relates to set_policy for modifying rather than removing a policy.

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