delete_queue_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action (delete) and parameter meanings, but does not mention that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or could fail if the item is currently being processed. No side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The argument descriptions are direct and add value without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant text.

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 delete operation with two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks any behavioral context (permanence, constraints, or failure modes) and does not mention return values. Given its simplicity, the description is mostly complete but has clear room for improvement in behavioral transparency.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: queue_item_id as 'the ID of the queue item to delete' and folder_name as 'the display name of the folder containing the item.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare property names, making the tool easier to invoke correctly.

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 verb and resource: 'Delete a queue item by its ID.' It also specifies the key parameter (queue_item_id) and includes the folder context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_queue_item, retry_queue_item, and get_queue_items.

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 usage context is implied by the delete action, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retry_queue_item for re-processing). It provides no exclusion criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when deletion is appropriate.

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