Update a queue

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

The description adds zero unique behavioral information. The annotations already define it as a non-read, non-destructive operation (`readOnlyHint: false`, `destructiveHint: false`). By repeating only the basic action, it fails to provide useful context beyond what the structure already provides.

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?

It is technically concise, but the inclusion of the full HTTP path syntax `(PUT /call_center_queues/{id})` is more of a technical specification detail than a concise explanation meant for guiding an LLM agent on task completion.

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 high parameter count (17), the definition is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the scope of the update, for example, whether it updates a queue's metadata, its routing behavior, or its prompt settings. An agent would require more context on what kind of changes are possible.

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?

Since the schema coverage is 100%, the schema itself contains all parameter semantics. The description offers no semantic value (e.g., it doesn't explain that most fields are optional for updates). It fails to add the value expected of a description when schema coverage is high, defaulting to a low score as it adds nothing but noise.

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 resource being manipulated (a queue) and the action (update). However, it relies almost entirely on the tool name and HTTP syntax for context rather than providing a clear, distinct purpose that differentiates it from sibling tools like list or create queues.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain what fields can be modified, nor does it offer any comparative usage context to help the agent decide if this is the correct action.

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