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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by explaining the state transition from FAILED to WAITING and that the workflow executor picks it up on the next tick. It does not contradict the annotations, and while it doesn't discuss idempotency details, the annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 description is three tight sentences with no filler: the action, the mechanism, and the supporting lookup tool. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each 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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core behavior, effect, and how to find the target entries. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't address the closest batch sibling or the semantics of workspaceId, but overall an agent can reasonably select and invoke the tool with the provided guidance.

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 must compensate, but it does not explain entryId or workspaceId beyond the generic context of retrying a workflow entry. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but workspaceId is never mentioned, and no format, ownership, or relationship details are provided.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Retry a failed workflow entry' and defines the exact state transition from FAILED to WAITING. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling campaignstack_retry_failed_entries_at_node; the singular 'entry' implies scope but the alternative is not named or contrasted.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use campaignstack_list_leads_at_node to find failed entries, which provides a clear usage path. However, it does not explain when to prefer this single-entry tool over the batch variant retry_failed_entries_at_node, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring a FAILED status.

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