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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It usefully discloses that the attempt counter is reset and that prior attempt history is preserved, which tells the agent the operation is non-lossy. It does not say what state the task enters, whether concurrent redrives are safe, or what permissions are required.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core action plus its restart semantics are front-loaded before the preservation detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs: what it does, that retries start fresh, and that history survives. Only the resulting task state and any preconditions remain implicit, a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 100% and the only parameter, task_id, is already documented with a pattern and provenance ("returned by schedule_http"). The description adds no meaning about the parameter, 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?

"Retry a failed task from now, with a fresh set of attempts" states a specific verb (retry) and resource (task), plus two scoping details: the restart point ("from now") and the reset of attempt count. This clearly separates it from siblings like cancel_task and get_task, though it never names them.

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 phrase "a failed task" implies the precondition that the task must be in a failed state, and "from now" implies it won't rewind. Beyond that there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is referenced for tasks that haven't failed.

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