Manage Queue

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

Description adds idempotency behavior ('add returns already_exists') and notes dryRun parameter, supplementing the idempotentHint annotation. However, it does not detail effects of enable/disable or removal behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word 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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and idempotency but omits return value details, effect of dryRun, and default queue behavior. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage; description restates idempotency key and target requirement, adding little beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool manages a queue with actions add, remove, enable, disable, and notes idempotency. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queues or other manage_* tools.

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 implies usage for queue management but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_queues for reading, or other manage_* tools for different resources).

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