delete_queue

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Delete a queue' only names the operation but doesn't state permanence, side effects on associated data, permission requirements, or whether the queue can be restored. Since a sibling tool restore_queue exists, the deletion behavior is likely nuanced, but the description provides no such context.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a destructive operation. It is a single sentence that conveys only the basic action, missing essential context such as reversibility or scope. This is brevity without adequate substance, so it earns a middling score.

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 delete tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention whether the queue is soft-deleted, what happens to associated issues or tags, or how it relates to restore_queue. The output schema may define the return value, but side effects and prerequisites are absent, leaving a significant gap for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter queue_key with an example, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action (delete) and resource (queue), using a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_queue_tag and restore_queue by explicitly targeting the queue itself. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'delete' entails beyond the resource name, so it's clear but not fully expansive.

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 guidance on when to use delete_queue versus alternatives such as restore_queue or delete_queue_tag. It doesn't mention prerequisites, whether deletion is reversible, or which user roles can perform it. The absence of any usage context means the agent must rely solely on tool name and shared understanding.

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