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

Annotations reveal the operation is mutating and non-destructive, but the description adds no context beyond that, such as whether retrying reuses original inputs, re-queues the task, or may consume credits. The description does not contradict the annotations, but it also provides no behavioral detail.

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?

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is also underspecified: it essentially restates the title and leaves meaningful behavioral and parameter guidance out. This is brevity rather than efficient completeness.

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 task-lifecycle mutation with no output schema, the description does not state what a successful retry returns, what state transitions occur, or whether retry is only valid after failure. It is too thin to fully support 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain task_id, but it only implies that the ID identifies the failed task. There is no explicit statement that task_id is the failed task's identifier or any detail about where to obtain it.

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 names a specific action, 'retries', and a specific resource, 'a failed task'. It is clear enough to distinguish from read-only task operations like get_task/list_tasks and from cancel_task, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to retry versus cancel or inspect a task, no mention of prerequisites such as the task needing to be in a failed state, and no discussion of alternatives. The phrase 'failed task' implies a condition but nothing explicit.

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