servicebus_purge_dlq

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and warns of destructive, unrecoverable behavior and the max_messages cutoff. It adds value by stating the stop condition, though it omits permissions or rate limits.

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 with three sentences, each providing essential information: action, destructive warning, and stop behavior. No unnecessary 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?

While it covers core behavior and destructiveness, it lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and return value information. For a destructive tool with no annotations, more completeness is expected.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only indirectly explains max_messages via the stop condition; namespace and queue remain undefined. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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, matching the name and distinguishing it from sibling tools like servicebus_purge_queue. The resource (DLQ) and action (delete) are specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like requeue_dlq or peek_dlq. The description only implies its use for permanent deletion but doesn't mention context or exclusions.

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