remove_simple_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it flags this as a WRITE tool, discloses the server-side guard (MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true), and explains the two-phase confirm=False preview / confirm=True execute behavior. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive operation.

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 action and its selectors lead, followed by the guard and confirm semantics; every sentence earns its place. The awkward line breaks and slight repetition of 'remove a Simple Queue' cost it a point.

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 a write tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers selection rules, the safety guard, and the confirm workflow. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for name/target (mutually-at-least-one, must match an existing queue) and confirm (default preview versus actual removal). device_name is left unexplained, which is the only gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove) plus resource (Simple Queue) and the two selectors (target or name), and explicitly ties it to the inverse operation set_client_bandwidth. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like simple_queues or set_client_bandwidth without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: at least one of target/name must be supplied and must match an existing queue, and it names the counterpart tool that created the queue. It doesn't discuss alternatives for inspecting queues (e.g., simple_queues) before removal, but the usage context is otherwise explicit.

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