process_queue

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It discloses that items execute through the same pacing/dedup/metrics path as write actions, uses jittered pacing and daily caps, and explains multi-account behavior when account is omitted. This is valuable for the agent to understand the tool's side effects and constraints.

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 2-3 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('drain queued actions with jittered pacing and daily caps'), and every sentence provides essential information. There is no wasted text.

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?

The description covers both parameters, explains the tool's role as the approval gate, details pacing and caps behavior, and handles the multi-account case. The presence of an output schema means return values are already documented. Given the tool's complexity and the richness of siblings, this description is fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'account' (if omitted, processes all accounts with due items) and 'max_actions' (default 5, bounds each account). This adds crucial meaning beyond the parameter names alone.

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 that the tool drains queued actions with jittered pacing and daily caps, and explicitly identifies itself as 'the approval gate for queued work.' This specific verb+resource description, along with mention of execution path and multi-account behavior, effectively distinguishes it from siblings like list_queue (listing) and cancel_queued_action (cancelling).

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 explains when to use the tool (to drain queued actions) and provides key context: omitting 'account' processes all accounts with due items, each bounded by max_actions and its own daily caps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though sibling tools exist for other queue operations.

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