enable_queue_tree

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

With annotations declaring idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of side effects, failure modes, or effects on an already-enabled queue tree. It contributes nothing beyond the annotations.

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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical parameter and usage information, so while it is brief, it fails to convey the necessary detail for effective use.

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 tool's simplicity, the description plus annotations and output schema provide a minimal picture, but the lack of parameter meaning and usage context makes it incomplete. The agent would not be able to confidently select or invoke this tool without additional information.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain either parameter. 'Enables a queue tree' does not clarify that 'name' is the required queue tree identifier or what 'device' refers to. With no parameter semantics provided, the agent has no way to correctly invoke the tool beyond guessing.

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 'Enables a queue tree' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'disable_queue_tree' and 'create_queue_tree'. It states exactly what the tool does with no ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'disable_queue_tree' or 'update_queue_tree'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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