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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds context beyond them: 'spends no credits' and the authorization requirement 'Needs project Write'. It doesn't reconcile the destructiveHint=true flag with a seemingly non-destructive re-run, but the added cost/auth facts are genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps to a tight set of sentences, each earning its place. Some phrasing is slightly awkward ('put the sentence it answers to the person'), which mildly hurts readability but not information density.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description still covers the essentials for a guarded mutation: cost, eligibility precondition, auth scope, and the confirm workflow that gates the call. It stops short of describing what the retried run returns or how the result is reported, but it is otherwise 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 67%; project and ingestionId are documented in the schema, but confirm has no schema description. The description compensates by fully specifying confirm's semantics and gating flow ('Call it without confirm first... pass confirm: true only if they agree'), adding real meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Runs an ingestion that failed again, under the same ingestion id') and even maps it to the UI affordance the user knows ('as Retry in the request drawer and on Trace'). An agent can distinguish it from explain_ingestion and estimate_ingestion without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use ('Only a failed ingestion can be retried'), names the alternative that determines eligibility ('explain_ingestion says whether a retry can fix it'), and prescribes a two-step flow: call without confirm first, then pass confirm:true only on agreement. Nothing is left to inference.

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