purge_queue

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

Goes well past the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: irreversibility, no undo, the exact scope of destruction (ready but not unacked messages), the pre-read that populates priorState with the destroyed count, and a dry-run escape hatch. This is the kind of detail an agent needs before firing a high-risk write.

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-loaded with the risk tag and the core action, then a structured Args block. Slight redundancy between 'IRREVERSIBLE' and 'No undo — purged messages cannot be restored', but every paragraph still 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?

No output schema exists and none is needed: the description explains that priorState returns the count about to be destroyed and clarifies what is and isn't affected. For a 4-param destructive tool, nothing required to invoke it safely is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block carries the full burden and does so for all four parameters: vhost with its '/' default, name with its provenance (list_queues), dry_run's preview semantics, and target as an optional config target name whose omission selects the default.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Purge all ready messages from a rabbitmq queue', with the [WRITE][risk=high] tag and 'IRREVERSIBLE' immediately signalling the operation class. This cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_queue (removes the queue itself) and list_queues (read-only enumeration).

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 clear operative guidance: read the queue first for audit evidence, unacked messages are not purged, and pass dry_run=True to preview. It points to list_queues as the source of the queue name, but does not explicitly contrast with the delete_queue/declare_queue siblings or state when purging is the wrong choice.

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