delete_queue

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint/readOnlyHint) by disclosing the exact undo contract: the queue is read first so priorState captures durable/auto_delete/arguments and message count, the undo re-declares the definition, and the messages are NOT restored. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before an irreversible operation.

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 [WRITE][risk=high] marker and the one-line purpose are front-loaded, followed by the undo semantics and a compact Args list. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence carries operational value and nothing is redundant.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers what changes, what is recoverable (definition, not messages), how to preview, and all parameter inputs. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: vhost (with the '/' default), name (with the source, list_queues), dry_run (preview semantics), and target (config-derived, omit for default). Every one of the four parameters gains meaning not present in 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a rabbitmq queue") plus a severity tag, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It hints at differentiation from purge_queue by noting messages are NOT restored, but never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 a preview path (dry_run=True) and describes the undo model, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor a named alternative for narrower operations such as purge_queue or declare_queue, so routing is left to inference.

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