patch_system_jobs

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the endpoint and the action of emptying a queue, but does not disclose what happens to jobs in the queue, whether they are permanently removed, or any side effects. It does not contradict the 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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The endpoint line and Args section are useful, but the 'Args' block mostly repeats the schema. It is concise without being a tautology.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and idempotent annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks context about what 'empty' means behaviorally, how it relates to sibling job tools, and any side effects. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the operational context is thin.

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 names the parameter 'queue_name' and says it is the jobs queue name to empty, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Queue Name' title. However, it does not provide examples, allowed values, or clarify what constitutes a valid queue name.

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 ('Empty') and resource ('a specific jobs queue'), and includes the endpoint path. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like delete_system_jobs or create_system_jobs.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or when emptying a queue is appropriate. The sibling list includes delete_system_jobs and create_system_jobs, but the description does not clarify how this differs from them.

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