panelica_laravel_apps_put_v1_laravel_apps_id_queues

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds that it is mutating and changes server state and requires apps:write. It does not elaborate on side effects such as whether workers are restarted or how the update is applied, and idempotentHint=true is not explained.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with no filler: action, HTTP path, category, scope, and side-effect flag each add quickly accessible context.

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 mutating tool with an undeclared request body and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it gives auth and path but omits the request payload shape and the observable result of updating queue workers.

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 covers id as a path parameter but declares the body as an open additionalProperties:true object with 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs'. The description does not compensate by listing expected fields, examples, or queue-worker options, so an agent cannot construct a correct body from this definition.

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 opening phrase 'Update queue workers' names a concrete action and resource, and the HTTP line pins it to PUT /v1/laravel/apps/:id/queues. It is distinguishable from the GET and restart queue siblings by verb, but it does not explicitly call those siblings out.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this PUT over the sibling GET /queues or POST /queues/restart. The description only supplies HTTP, category, scope, and mutating metadata, leaving the selection decision to the agent.

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