pmg_postfix_flush

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the mutation is low severity and mentions dry-run behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or post-execution state. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the mutation indicator and purpose. Each sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 an output schema, so return value details are not required. The description covers purpose, usage, and a config prerequisite, but it could mention potential side effects or confirmation of success. It is complete enough for a low-complexity mutation.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'confirm' behavior but does not explain 'node' or 'proximo_target' beyond the config hint. This adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 'flush all Postfix queues' with 'immediate re-delivery attempt,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pmg_postfix_qshape, which is about queue statistics.

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 explains the dry-run default and the need for confirm=True to execute, along with a config requirement. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the uniqueness of the tool makes the context clear.

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