stalwart_delete_queue_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly flags the operation as destructive and mandates confirm=True, which is essential safety information. It does not detail irreversibility or side effects beyond 'destructive,' but that is adequate for a delete operation.

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—two lines of purpose and a short argument list—with no fluff. Every sentence is meaningful.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it, and the safety requirement. No significant 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 explain parameters. It does: message_id is identified as a queued message id from list_queue, and confirm is explicitly required to be True. This adds clear semantics beyond bare 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the target ('a message from the outgoing queue'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_queue, get_queue_message, and reschedule_queue_message.

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?

It provides clear context that the message_id comes from stalwart_list_queue, but does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., reschedule instead of delete). This is clear context without exclusions.

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