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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral detail that retry resets the send time and retry counter, which is a mutation of state. It does not explain what happens to a delivery in progress or exact consequences.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and including a useful constraint about cron sending. No wasted text.

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?

Given a single parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present, and annotations covering safety profile, the description supplies the essential mechanism and the cron caveat. It could mention only failed deliveries are eligible, but is largely complete.

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% with a description on deliveryId ('QueuedWebhook ID'). The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Queue... for another attempt') plus resource ('failed delivery') and mechanism ('resetting its send time and retry counter'). Clearly distinguished from siblings like glpi_list_webhook_deliveries and glpi_set_webhook_active.

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?

Explains that the cron does the actual sending and there is no immediate-send endpoint, which addresses a likely agent expectation. Does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., only failed deliveries, not pending), but the failed-delivery scope is implied.

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