process_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses jittered pacing, daily caps, and that items go through the same path as write actions. The term 'drain' implies destructiveness, which is clear. Could have mentioned more about side effects or permissions, but still informative.

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?

Three sentences that are concise and front-loaded. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, role, and parameter behavior. No wasted words.

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 only two optional parameters and an output schema (details not shown), the description covers the core behavior, parameter semantics, and distinguishes this tool from siblings. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 compensates well. It explains the account parameter's effect (omit for all accounts, specify for a single account) and mentions max_actions as a bound. However, it doesn't explain max_actions in detail (e.g., default value or how it interacts with daily caps).

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 uses the specific verb 'drain' and resource 'queued actions', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like queue_post and queue_engagement by positioning itself as the approval gate that executes queued work.

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 explicitly states that this call is the approval gate for queued work, implying when to use it. It also explains behavior when account is omitted vs specified. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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