config_update_queue_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the action is an update and lists valid status values, but does not describe side effects, permissions needed, reversibility, or any impact on the queue. This is minimal and leaves significant uncertainty for an agent.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. The second sentence adds useful detail about allowed status values. It is efficient, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (content unknown), the description is insufficient. It fails to provide context on how to obtain instance_id/queue_id, what the update entails, or any caveats. An agent would be under-equipped to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' parameter values (ENABLED or DISABLED) but does not clarify 'instance_id', 'queue_id', or 'region'. These are essential identifiers, and the description provides no guidance on their meaning or format.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('queue status'), and the second sentence clarifies the allowed status values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like config_create_queue or config_describe_queue by focusing on status modification, though it could be more explicit about what 'queue' refers to in context.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the queue must exist), and no mention of exclusions. The description simply implies 'use this to update queue status' without contextual help or alternative recommendations.

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