remove_queue_type

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the queue type is in use). It neither contradicts nor enriches 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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple CRUD operation.

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?

With no parameter descriptions, no usage guidance, and minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, the description leaves important gaps. While the output schema and annotations provide some context, the description fails to address dependencies, side effects, or selection criteria.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either the 'name' or 'device' parameters. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 'removes' and clearly identifies the resource as 'queue type' on the MikroTik device. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_queue_type, get_queue_type, and update_queue_type.

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 intended usage is implied by the action ('removes a queue type'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives mentioned. It doesn't state prerequisites or consequences of removal.

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