move_failed_jobs_to_dlq

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It mentions moving and TTL but does not disclose whether original jobs are deleted, permissions needed, or side effects. The dry-run parameter exists but is not highlighted in description. Schema covers some behavioral hints but description adds minimal transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states action, second states purpose. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error states, or system impact. Adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context about TTL and cleanup, aligning with parameters like ttlDays and beforeTimestamp, but does not add significant new meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Move' and resource 'failed jobs to a dead letter queue with TTL', and specifies the intended purpose 'cleaning up old failed jobs that have been manually resolved'. This differentiates from siblings like retry_job or clean_queue.

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?

Description gives explicit context 'cleaning up old failed jobs that have been manually resolved', indicating when to use. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned, though the context implies it is for resolved failures.

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