enable_simple_queue

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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It fails to mention effects on existing configurations, error conditions, or dependencies like requiring the queue to exist, making the description nearly a restatement of the tool name.

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, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and does little more than echo the tool name, so it is not a well-structured or informative description despite its brevity.

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 simple schema and output schema presence, the description should provide adequate context, but it is too sparse. It lacks any guidance on when to use the tool, what 'enabling' entails, or how it relates to other queue tools, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'name' or 'device' parameters. The agent must infer that 'name' identifies the queue and 'device' is optional, with no elaboration beyond raw schema definitions. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter explanations.

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 simple queue' clearly states the action (enables) and the resource (simple queue), which distinguishes it from tools enabling other resource types. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like enable_queue_tree or explain what 'simple queue' means, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disable_simple_queue, create_simple_queue, or enable_queue_tree, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side conditions.

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