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

The description discloses the state change and the clearing of the failure reason, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. It is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. No hidden destructive side effects are described, which is appropriate given the 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 tightly packed sentences front-load the core action, then provide the prerequisite step and the follow-up workflow. No filler or redundant wording.

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 single-parameter state-transition tool, the description covers the precondition (check failureReason), the action (move to draft, clear reason), and the next steps (edit, schedule, submit for approval). No output schema is needed to understand the tool's effect.

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?

There is only one parameter, contentPostId, and the schema provides no description (0% coverage). The description implies this is the identifier of the failed content post, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's role. Since the parameter is simple and inferable from context, the gap is minor but still present.

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 clearly states the action: moving a 'failed' content post back to 'draft' status and clearing the failure reason. This is a specific verb-plus-resource with an explicit state transition, and it differentiates this tool from related siblings like retry_failed_entry or update_content_post.

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 provides clear workflow guidance: check failureReason via get_content_post before retrying, then edit and schedule or submit for approval. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the context is specific enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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