delete_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state that the operation is destructive and irreversible, what permissions (management/configure on the vhost) are required, what happens to unconsumed messages, or how errors surface when the queue does not exist.

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 a four-character fragment with nothing wasted but also nothing earned; it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded scope or caveat because there is no content at all.

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 destructive, unannotated tool with no output schema and no sibling routing, the description leaves the agent without the minimum needed to call it safely. It says nothing about irreversibility, vhost scoping behavior with the default "/", or failure modes.

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%: both "name" (队列名称) and "vhost" (default "/") are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"删除队列" restates the tool name delete_queue verbatim, so it conveys no information the agent did not already have from the identifier. It names a verb and resource, but as a description it is a tautology rather than a differentiation from siblings like create_queue, delete_exchange, or delete_vhost.

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 guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. For a destructive operation on a messaging broker this is a serious omission: the agent is not told whether the queue must be empty, whether consumers must be disconnected first, or which sibling (e.g., a purge or a binding deletion) would be the safer alternative.

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