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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is approval-gated, requires a new idempotency key, and 'ambiguous provider outcomes are never blindly resent.' This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the safety/retry semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The approval-gated warning is front-loaded, the scope is precise, and the idempotency requirement is stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the retry scope, the idempotency requirement, and the cautious behavior around ambiguous outcomes. It does not explain the authority parameter or the output schema, but the output schema exists and the core invocation semantics are covered.

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 carries the burden. It explains the purpose of idempotency_key ('Requires a new idempotency key') and channel ('current terminal or time-eligible activation notification channel'), but it does not explain business_id, activation_session_id, or authority. The description adds some meaning but leaves several parameters 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Retry') and resource ('activation notification channel for the exact active session'), and distinguishes it from a generic retry by specifying 'current terminal or time-eligible' and 'exact active session.' It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from retry_setup and confirm_notification_destination.

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 clear context: retry only the current terminal or time-eligible channel for the exact active session, and requires a new idempotency key. It implies when to use (when a notification needs retrying for an active session) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The 'APPROVAL-GATED' flag adds a usage constraint.

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