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

Although annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the return payload ('status quued'), the requirement to poll get_pin, the preflight check equivalent to create_pin, and the two explicit error conditions (not_found, conflict). It does not contradict any annotation (idempotentHint=true is plausible since re-queueing may be idempotent, though not stated). It could go further by noting idempotency behavior, but it already discloses the core outcomes.

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 compact but dense, organized into three purposeful paragraphs. The lead sentence states the purpose, the second covers usage constraints and alternatives, and the third covers behavior and errors. Every sentence contributes unique information; there is no fluff. It is longer than the shortest possible version, but the extra length is justified by the failure-mode detail and alternatives.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: return status, polling, preflight behavior, and failure modes. It omits explicit idempotency behavior, but that is already encoded in the idempotentHint annotation. It also does not mention authorization requirements, but that is likely tool-agnostic and covered elsewhere. Overall, it is sufficient for a competent agent to call it correctly.

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% with descriptions for pin_id, board_id, and account_id. The description enriches these by giving the exact scenarios for board_id (original board deleted/inaccessible) and account_id (account reconnect needed). It clarifies that pin_id is required and originates from list_pins or create_pin, and ties the parameter choice to failure reasons. That adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a crisp verb-and-resource statement 'Re-queue a failed pin' and immediately scopes it with 'optionally on another board or account.' It actively distinguishes itself from siblings, notably retry_schedule ('for a failed schedule use retry_schedule') and contrasts with create_pin via the preflight mention. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not for.

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 guidance is explicit: 'Use only for pins whose status is failed' states the precondition, and 'Published pins cannot be edited or retried' states a hard exclusion. It also tells when to pass board_id (deleted/inaccessible board, with a pointer to check_board_access) and when to pass account_id (needs reconnect). The alternative for failed schedules is named directly. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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