delete_shaper_queue

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

The description adds 'WARNING: This is irreversible' which strengthens the destructiveHint annotation by conveying permanence and heightened caution. It does not contradict the annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the action and includes a crucial warning, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 destructiveHint annotation, thorough schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It adds the key warning about irreversibility that is not captured in structured fields, making it sufficient for the tool's straightforward nature.

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%, with all four parameters (confirm, dry_run, queue_id, apply_immediately) well-documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a shaper queue by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling delete operations targeting other resources (e.g., delete_traffic_shaper).

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The phrase 'by ID' implies that users need to first obtain a queue ID, but no prerequisite like 'use search_shaper_queues first' is stated. Usage is implied by the tool's name and purpose rather than explicitly articulated.

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