Delete Tracker queue macro

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds value by reinforcing 'irreversible' and by disclosing the return contract ('acknowledgement on success') in the absence of an output schema.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the irreversibility warning front-loaded before the return-behavior note. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter, fully documented delete tool with complete destructive/idempotency annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the action, its irreversibility, and the success signal. Only an explicit alternative-tool pointer is missing.

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%: both macro_id (numeric id sourced from macros_list) and queue_id (case-sensitive key or numeric id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('delete a macro from a queue') with the scope qualifier 'permanently' and 'irreversible'. An agent can distinguish it from tracker_macros_list, tracker_macros_get, tracker_macros_create and tracker_macros_update without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the destructive verb; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor a pointer to alternatives such as tracker_macros_update when the intent is modification rather than removal. For a delete operation the intent is self-evident, so 3 is the fair midpoint.

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