update_queue_type

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already disclose safety traits. The description adds the fact that it operates on existing queue types and focuses on discipline-specific settings, but it does not explain partial-update semantics, failure behavior, or dependencies. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Updates.' It contains no filler and every word contributes to the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for the information it provides.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters and an output schema, but the description is extremely terse. It does not explain how the update behaves (e.g., whether unspecified parameters are left unchanged or reset), under what conditions it fails, or how new_name interacts with other settings. Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the complexity of the operation demands more contextual detail.

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 provides only a high-level hint ('discipline-specific settings') without explaining any of the 15 parameters. Parameter names like cake_mpu, pcq_rate, and new_name are self-descriptive to some degree, but the description does not clarify their meaning, defaults, or constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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: 'Updates an existing queue type's discipline-specific settings.' The verb 'updates' and resource 'existing queue type' distinguish it from create/remove/list tools. However, the term 'discipline-specific settings' is somewhat vague, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools like update_queue_tree or create_queue_type, nor does it provide preconditions or exclusions. The only implied usage is that an existing queue type must be updated, but this is not stated explicitly.

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