make_delete_dlq

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the selective nature of deletion ('ONLY those are removed') and the intentional safety guardrail against bulk deletion. It does not mention potential side effects or return behavior, but for a delete tool the key behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. The safety exclusion and id source are compressed into a compact, readable structure without redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter deletion tool, the description covers all essential context: what it does, how to obtain the ids, and the limiting constraint. No output schema is present, but the behavior is simple enough that return values are not critical. The description is self-sufficient.

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 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that 'dlq_ids' must come from 'make_list_incomplete' and by reinforcing that only the passed ids are removed. This enriches the semantic understanding of the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('specific incomplete/failed execution(s) (DLQ items)'), with clear qualifiers: 'by id' and 'from a given scenario'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from bulk deletion by stating that deleting ALL incomplete executions is intentionally unsupported, which sets it apart from a generic 'delete' tool.

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?

The description explicitly notes when to use this tool (for specific DLQ items) and when not (not for deleting all incomplete executions), with a safety rationale. It also references a sibling tool ('make_list_incomplete') as the source for the exact ids, providing practical usage context.

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