servicebus_purge_dlq

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses destructive behavior, irrecoverability of messages, and the stop condition when max_messages is exceeded. It also explains authentication logic, offering significant behavioral insight.

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 four sentences, all essential. It front-loads purpose, then warns of destruction, explains stop condition, and ends with authentication. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers destruction, stop condition, and auth. It does not mention the output schema, but rule allows that. Still, it adequately informs the agent about key behaviors.

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 must compensate. It explains connection_string_env_var fully, including auth logic. However, namespace and queue parameters are only mentioned by name with no additional semantics, and max_messages is not explained beyond its default. Partial compensation.

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 deletes all messages from a dead letter queue for an Azure Service Bus queue. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like servicebus_peek_dlq or servicebus_requeue_dlq.

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 is destructive, stops if max_messages is exceeded, and explains authentication fallback. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like requeue or peek, which would help the agent decide when to use this tool.

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