update_queue

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses a critical behavior: fields are applied independently, the call succeeds even when some changes fail, and the returned messages must be checked. This is strong, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating the operation, routing watcher-related work elsewhere, and warning about partial updates. There is no filler or 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 tool with 100% schema documentation and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing operational detail: partial success and the need to inspect returned messages. Combined with the destructiveHint annotation, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameter descriptions already carry the details. The tool description only adds a high-level field list and does not provide extra syntax or formatting guidance, matching the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the resource ('an existing queue's settings'), while enumerating representative fields. It explicitly differentiates itself from manage_queue_watchers by pointing to that sibling for watcher changes.

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 gives an explicit when-not-to-use instruction: for watchers, use manage_queue_watchers instead. It also clearly implies this tool modifies an existing queue rather than creating one, so an agent can route accordingly.

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