servicebus_requeue_dlq

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains message preservation (body, session_id, correlation_id, application_properties), the completion (removal) step, the stopping condition based on max_messages, and authentication mechanisms (connection_string_env_var vs DefaultAzureCredential). However, error handling and idempotency are not discussed.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers behavior (re-queue, preserve fields, stop condition) and auth. Minor gaps include potential side effects (order) and error scenarios.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for connection_string_env_var (auth fallback) and max_messages (stop threshold). Namespace and queue are not individually explained, but their role is clear from context. Overall adds value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Move messages from a queue's dead letter queue back to the main queue') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like purge_dlq and peek_dlq, which have different outcomes.

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 requeuing dead-letter messages but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like purge_dlq. No when-not-to-use or fallback advice is provided.

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