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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description's real added value is the state transition to pending_owner_confirmation, which explains the effect of the write. It does not say what happens when the formation is in the wrong status (error vs no-op), nor what authorization the caller needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition, then the resulting state. No filler, no repetition.

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 mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers both the entry condition and the resulting state, which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is failure behavior when the formation is not in an eligible status.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the op_fm_* format and the required status constraint. The description only restates the status condition, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Retry a formation'), plus the qualifying statuses, so it is distinguishable from siblings such as cancel_formation or reissue_action_link. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead when the formation is in some other state.

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?

It states the exact condition under which the tool applies ('in failed or action_required status'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It offers no exclusions or explicit alternative routing (e.g., reissue_action_link for other stuck flows), so it falls short of a 5.

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