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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds that this starts compute (a cost/resource implication) and delineates exactly which jobs are affected versus left alone, which is real behavioral value. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or what happens to already-queued jobs, so it isn't exhaustive.

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?

Four short sentences with the write/compute warning front-loaded, then the exact scope of mutation. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what changes and what is left alone. With no output schema, a brief note on the return value or auth requirements would make it fully self-sufficient, but an agent has enough 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself telling the agent to obtain workflow_id from depot_ci_get_run_status or depot_ci_list_workflows. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (retry) and resource (a workflow's failed jobs), and scopes it precisely: failed and cancelled jobs plus dependent skipped jobs, while succeeded jobs are untouched. This distinguishes it from the singular sibling depot_ci_retry_job without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 makes the selection condition clear (use when you want to re-run only the failed/cancelled subset, not the whole workflow), which implicitly separates it from a single-job retry. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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