servicebus_requeue_dlq

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

The description details that messages are re-sent preserving body, session_id, correlation_id, and application_properties, then completed from the DLQ. It also notes the stopping condition for max_messages. With no annotations, this provides good behavioral insight, though it lacks error handling or idempotency details.

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 three sentences long, each adding essential information: purpose, preserved fields, and stopping condition. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 complexity of requeueing from DLQ and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavior. However, it misses notes on error handling or idempotency. Still, it is fairly complete for this type of 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%, but the description only explains 'max_messages' (stopping condition). 'namespace' and 'queue' are not described individually, leaving ambiguity. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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.' It uses a specific verb ('Move') and distinct resource ('dead letter queue'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'purge_dlq' or 'peek_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 implies usage for requeueing DLQ messages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'purge_dlq' or 'peek_dlq'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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