Delete queued message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the confirmation requirement and the pre-send timing constraint, which is useful, but the sentence 'Runs can spend credits or trigger downstream actions' is boilerplate that does not apply to removing a queued message and reads as misleading noise.

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 core statement is front-loaded and efficient, but the third sentence about runs spending credits and not resubmitting unknown outcomes does not earn its place for a queue-deletion tool and dilutes the definition. Two of three sentences are on-topic; the third is generic copy.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the confirmation prerequisite, so the essentials are present. It still omits whether deletion is reversible or what the result looks like, and the off-topic credit/downstream sentence leaves the definition feeling partially templated.

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 all four parameters (account, confirm, session_id, queued_message_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at confirm and account ('explicit confirmation', 'this exact account operation') and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what is structured.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Remove a message from the session's queue') plus a scope qualifier ('before it is sent') that cleanly separates it from siblings like send_queued_message, update_queued_message, and list_queued_messages. An agent can identify the operation 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?

'Explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation' implies a usage condition (only delete when the user asked for exactly this action), which is reinforced by the schema's confirm field. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., update_queued_message to edit instead of delete) and the closing sentence about runs/credits adds no routing guidance for this tool.

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