sqs_delete_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say whether the deletion is permanent, what happens if the receipt handle is stale or the visibility window expired, or what error surfaces for an unknown handle. The only added word, "emulated", clarifies the target is a local emulator rather than real AWS.

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?

Six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 mutation with no annotations beyond the hint flags, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the definition is under-specified. An agent cannot tell from it whether the queue must be provided as a name or URL, or what happens on failure.

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 both parameters depend on the description, and it only glosses receipt_handle as a lookup key. The queue parameter is never mentioned, and there is no guidance on format (name vs URL/ARN) or pairing between the two values.

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?

"Delete emulated SQS message by receipt handle" names a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (SQS message, not queue), and the identifying key. That distinguishes it from the sibling sqs_delete_queue without opening its schema. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly name the sibling or scope it against other delete 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisite that a receipt handle must first be obtained from sqs_receive_messages. The phrase "by receipt handle" hints at the workflow but leaves the agent to infer it from SQS domain knowledge.

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