Delete Notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the operation removes an event from the queue and identifies the destructive nature. However, it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it can fail for unprocessed events, or any permissions/error behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the target, and the key in one compact statement.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the operation and the input. Still, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, return behavior, and consequences beyond the deletion itself, and there are no annotations to fill those gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that receipt_id selects the event to delete and is the queue receipt identifier. This is some semantic value, but it largely restates the parameter name and does not explain how to obtain or validate the receiptId.

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 states a specific action ('deletes'), a specific resource ('processed event from queue'), and the key used ('by receiptId'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like receive_notification and the various getters, even without naming alternatives.

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 phrase 'processed event' implies the tool should be used only after events have been processed, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to receive_notification as the source of receiptId. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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