delete_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses WRITE with high risk, reads before deletion, records priorState for undo, and explicitly states messages are NOT restored. Dry-run preview is also noted.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a summary line, behavioral detail, and an Args block. Every sentence adds critical information, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the operation lifecycle, undo semantics, dry-run, parameter nuances, and risk. The only minor gap is not mentioning what the return value looks like, but the detail is otherwise comprehensive for a delete operation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section explains every parameter: vhost (default '/'), name (from list_queues), dry_run (preview), and target (config default). This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: "Delete a rabbitmq queue" and adds the undo behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like purge_queue and declare_queue. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 description provides clear context: it can preview with dry_run, reads the queue first, and the undo re-declares the queue. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the behavior is well-enough specified to infer appropriate use.

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