create_queue

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a new queue ID and URL, which is useful behavioral context. The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, it doesn't mention failure behaviors, uniqueness enforcement beyond the schema, or permission requirements, so full transparency is limited.

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 concise, with no wasted words. The primary purpose and return value are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides actionable follow-up steps without overexplaining. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage and the destructiveHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It includes the key return information and post-creation setup steps. It could be slightly stronger by mentioning what happens on duplicate queue name or by pointing to list_queues for validation, but the essential information is present.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters and their meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 tool creates a new RT queue, names the resource ('RT queue'), and differentiates it from siblings like update_queue or create_ticket. It also adds the return value (queue ID and URL), which strengthens purpose clarity.

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 clear context by instructing which follow-up tools to use after creation (manage_queue_watchers, grant_rights, create_custom_field + apply_custom_field). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the guidance is practical and context-rich.

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