pmg_postfix_flush

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the dry-run safety mechanism, the effect (only triggers redelivery, does not clear mail), the config prerequisite, and the return value structure for both dry-run and execution. This is comprehensive for a flush tool.

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 highly concise, using 4 sentences to convey all necessary information. It front-loads the mutation nature and low severity, then efficiently covers usage, behavior, and sibling reference. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage pattern, return values, safety, config dependency, and relationship to sibling tool. It leaves no significant gaps for an AI agent to make an informed decision.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of the 'confirm' parameter (dry-run vs execution) and the nature of the dry-run return (a PLAN). This extra context enhances the schema definitions, justifying a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool flushes all Postfix queues for immediate re-delivery attempts. It is a mutation tool that is clearly distinguished from its sibling (pmg_postfix_qshape) by mentioning the queue state check. The verb 'flush' and resource 'Postfix queues' are precise, leaving 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 clear usage guidance: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute. It also instructs to check queue state with pmg_postfix_qshape before and after, and mentions the required PROXIMO_PMG_* config. This explicitly guides the agent when to use the tool and how to use it safely.

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