remove_from_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the response shape ('names `removed` and the `queue` left'), the exact refusal message for a conflicting set_production call, and the downstream consequence of an empty queue. It stops short of stating reversibility/permission requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the parameter convention, then the return/refusal behavior in three tight sentences. The quoted error string and parenthetical anchor are worth their length because they disambiguate real agent failure modes.

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?

No output schema exists, so explaining the reply's `removed`/`queue` fields is exactly the right compensation, and the empty-queue/turn-end interaction is a genuinely load-bearing detail. Complete enough to call correctly; only edge cases like invalid positions are unaddressed.

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 the non-obvious parameter: position is 1-based, 1 = currently building, 2 = next, tied to how set_production's `queue` and city_screen list items. city_id is left implicit, but its meaning is unambiguous.

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 and resource ('Drop one item from a city's production queue') and immediately differentiates itself from set_production by framing itself as the inverse operation. An agent can tell exactly what this does 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 explicit conditional guidance: re-setting an already-queued item is refused, so 'remove it here first, or set_production another item.' It also names the follow-up requirement when the queue empties (set_production before the turn can end), routing the agent to the right sibling.

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