Take a thumbnail out of the queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses a key non-destructive trait: the thumbnail itself is untouched and stays on the game. It does not mention reversibility, idempotency, or error behavior, but the core side effects are clearly stated.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then adds the important non-destructive clarification. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description plus schema is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it affects, and what it does not affect. It could mention what happens to the removed entry or whether the action is reversible, but these are minor gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which already explains that id can be a queue entry id or asset id and game is a game name or universe id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove an entry') and resource ('swap queue'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like queue_thumbnail (add) and get_queue (list). It also explains the intended effect on auto-swap behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to prevent auto-swap from promoting a specific queue entry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool set.

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