servicebus_purge_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the destructive action and the partial purging behavior. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors like required permissions, rate limits, or whether the queue metadata is affected. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: three lines. It front-loads the purpose, then a warning, then the behavior detail. No redundant information; every sentence 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 the lack of annotations and the tool's destructive nature, the description should cover prerequisites, permissions, and response format. It mentions the partial purge behavior but omits what the tool returns (e.g., count of deleted messages) and any preconditions. It is somewhat incomplete for an AI agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description only explains `max_messages` behavior. The required parameters `namespace` and `queue` are not described beyond their names, which are somewhat self-explanatory but could benefit from more context (e.g., format, restrictions). The output is not explained despite an output schema being present.

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 'Delete all messages from an Azure Service Bus queue.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (messages on a queue), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `servicebus_purge_dlq` (dead-letter queue) and `servicebus_purge_subscription` (subscription).

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 explicitly warns about the destructive nature and mentions the max_messages behavior: 'Stops and leaves remaining messages untouched if the running total exceeds max_messages.' This guides the agent on when to use the tool (full purge) and the effect of the max_messages parameter. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like fetching messages first.

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