Purge terminal tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It explicitly discloses which tasks are dropped (done/failed/dead), which are kept (queued/claimed), and that a count of removed tasks is returned. This is clear but does not note whether the action is irreversible or if any permissions are needed.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action in the first sentence and the return value in the second. There is no extraneous information or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers the scope of tasks affected, the retention of in-flight tasks, and the return value. It lacks details about error conditions or prerequisites, but given the low complexity, it adequately answers the key questions an agent would have.

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?

The schema provides only a 'queue' string with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'from a queue', which clarifies that the parameter identifies the target queue, but it does not specify whether it is a name, ID, or the expected format. This is minimal compensation for the lack of schema detail.

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 verb ('Drop') and the resource ('TERMINAL tasks from a queue') while specifying which task states are affected (done/failed/dead). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on cleanup rather than enqueueing, claiming, or listing tasks.

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 phrase 'for retention/cleanup' indicates when to use the tool, and the statement that in-flight tasks are kept helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use list_queues to see queues first' or when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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