remove_queue_itemRemoves one pending queue occurrence by ID without deleting history or stopping the active turn. Already absent items are ignored as a no-op.
Membership-aware idempotent removal of one pending occurrence by ID. An already absent occurrence is a no-op. Does not delete history or stop an active turn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | ||
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18-dsh021a2.14Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the description's real value is qualifying that destruction: it removes only the pending occurrence, does not delete history, and does not stop an active turn, and confirms the absent-case no-op. It omits any permission/auth detail despite the 'Membership-aware' label.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by two scoping clarifications. Every sentence adds information; no filler.
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 low-complexity single-item removal with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral envelope (idempotency, blast radius). The gaps are the undocumented parameters and the unexplained 'Membership-aware' precondition.
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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It only gestures at 'by ID', which loosely maps to itemId, and says nothing about sessionId or how the two combine, leaving a required identifier undocumented.
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 ('removal of one pending occurrence by ID') and the title pins the target as one native Inbox item. It implies scope vs clear_session_queue via 'one pending occurrence', but never names a sibling to sharpen the distinction.
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 only implied by the tool name and the 'one ... occurrence' scope. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives like clear_session_queue (bulk) or steer_queue_item, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.