Update a queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by narrowing behavior to a pause/resume toggle (not a general settings mutation) and disclosing the underlying PUT endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements, side effects on running jobs, or reversibility.

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 definition is short and front-loads the substantive sentence before the endpoint metadata. The leading line duplicates the title, which is mild waste, but nothing else is padded.

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?

For a two-parameter toggle with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what changes, on what resource, via which endpoint. Only the absence of guidance on queue lifecycle interactions (e.g., how pausing relates to empty_queue) keeps it below 5.

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%, so both 'name' and 'isPaused' are already documented, and the enum of 19 queue names is self-explanatory in the schema. The description's phrase 'paused status' only lightly reinforces the isPaused parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and scope: 'Change the paused status of a specific queue,' which is more precise than the title 'Update a queue' and clearly separates it from read siblings like get_queue or destructive ones like empty_queue. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as empty_queue or run_queue_command_legacy, all of which operate on the same queue names. The agent must infer usage purely from the phrase 'change the paused status.'

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