Remove a snapshot of pending native Inbox items

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false. The description adds real context beyond that: a 100-item bound, that it snapshots before removing (explaining idempotency semantics), that it never deletes history or stops an active turn, and that it reports new arrivals and remaining items. Missing are permission requirements and failure/error behavior, which is why it isn't 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by reporting behavior, safety guarantees, and a caution. Each sentence carries information, though the phrasing is slightly telegraphic and could integrate the parameter context.

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 one-parameter mutation whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers scope limits, side-effect boundaries, and result reporting. The remaining gap is the undocumented sessionId and lack of error/permission detail, which the missing output schema does not fill.

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?

There is a single required sessionId parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing specific about it. It is compensated only by the obvious self-documenting name and the tool's implicit session scope, so the description neither adds nor misleads.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (snapshot and remove pending queue IDs) and clarifies scope: a cap of 100 and removal limited only to occurrences present at snapshot time. That clearly separates it from item-level siblings like remove_queue_item and from read-only list_session_queue, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: bulk-clear a session's pending items and then inspect unknown outcomes before proceeding. There is a caution ('Inspect unknown outcomes before further action') but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as remove_queue_item or list_session_queue, and no stated preconditions.

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