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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real context beyond them: work happens in the background, unaffected source states are explicitly listed, and the status result is asynchronous. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate-limit or duplicate-retry behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition; the no-op case and async result follow in logical order. No filler, though the phrase 'in the background' and 'asynchronously' partially overlap.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers the async nature and the no-op case but leaves the agent without the parameter mapping or a pointer to how/where to poll extraction status (e.g., get_content_source). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across three parameters (brandId, contentId, referenceId, two required). The description never explains which identifier selects the source, why both contentId and referenceId are needed, or what brandId does. For a tool with zero documented parameters the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 ('Retry a failed or stalled source extraction') plus the qualifying condition (failed/stalled), which cleanly separates it from sibling source tools like add_content_source, get_content_source, and create_content_source_upload. An agent can identify the operation 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 a clear trigger ('failed or stalled') and an implicit exclusion ('Completed or actively processing sources are unchanged'), which tells the agent when the call is a no-op. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., re-adding the source) for cases where retry is inappropriate.

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