update_simple_queue

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds parameter format details (e.g., '10M/10M', '8s', priority range) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like immediate effect or permission requirements. No contradiction with 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 brief and well-structured: a single sentence stating the core purpose followed by bulleted notes for key parameter formats. No redundant words; every line provides useful information.

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?

This is a complex tool with 17 parameters, but the description only addresses a handful of them. Important fields like dst, queue, parent, and packet_marks are not explained, nor is the required 'name' parameter highlighted. While the output schema and annotations cover some context, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the description must compensate. It explains formats for target, bandwidth fields, burst_time, and priority, which is genuinely helpful. However, it leaves many other parameters (dst, queue, parent, bucket_size, packet_marks, etc.) unexplained, providing only partial compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool updates an existing simple queue's rate limits, target, or scheduling settings. The verb 'updates' plus the resource 'existing simple queue' makes the purpose immediate and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_simple_queue or remove_simple_queue.

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 phrase 'existing simple queue' implies this tool is for modifying already-created queues, not for creating new ones. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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