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

Despite annotations already marking this as a non-destructive, non-open-world write, the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the prior failure refunded credits, this retry recharges the same amount, credits_charged reports the figure, and the agent should tell the user. It also scopes ownership and notes the player card refreshes on its own.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and its cost consequence; nothing is padding. A couple of phrases ('say so', 'the player card checks on its own') are compressed to the point of slight ambiguity, but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers the credit-charging consequence, the ownership restriction, and the fact that no polling is needed. Return details are left to the output schema, which is appropriate, so nothing critical is missing.

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 a single parameter ('clip') and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description's mention of 'credits_charged' refers to a response field rather than an input, adding no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (retry) and resource (failed clip), and the resource word 'clip' distinguishes it from the sibling retry_image and retry_video. However, the opening sentence largely restates the title, so it doesn't do much beyond naming the operation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'try a failed clip again' plus the exclusion 'Only the user's own clips', which tells the agent the clip must be failed and owned. But it never names an alternative (e.g., create_clip for a fresh clip) or states when not to call it.

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