remove_queue_items

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the remove action and points to sibling options; it does not mention whether the removal is permanent, whether it can cascade to downloads, or what side effects the flags may trigger. The schema covers some parameter behavior, but the description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single compact sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded. It wastes no words and efficiently points to sibling tool semantics.

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 destructive, 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It correctly identifies the operation and batch scope, but it does not explain return behavior, explicitly warn about side effects, or fully route between single and batch variants. The schema handles parameter semantics, leaving some operational context missing.

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's phrase 'with the same options as remove_queue_item' adds a useful cross-reference for agents familiar with the singular tool, but it is not necessary because each parameter already has a clear description in the schema.

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 ('Remove'), the resource ('queue items'), and the batch scope ('several ... at once'), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling remove_queue_item. Referencing 'same options as remove_queue_item' further anchors its identity without ambiguity.

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?

'Remove several queue items at once' clearly conveys the intended batch use case, and the mention of remove_queue_item signals the related single-item tool. However, it does not explicitly state 'use remove_queue_item for a single item' or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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