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

The destructiveHint=true annotation only signals a mutating operation; the description adds substantive behavior beyond it: that this is a WRITE that starts compute (cost implication), that skipped dependent jobs are also retried, and the precise failure condition. This is meaningful disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the WRITE warning and tightly packed with no filler; each sentence carries information (scope, side effects, failure, alternative). The trailing 'Depot: CIService/RetryJob' is an internal routing detail that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

With only two well-documented string parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description supplies everything an agent needs: mutating nature, blast radius (dependent jobs), failure boundary, and the fallback tool. No relevant gap remains.

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 both parameters are documented there, including that workflow_id comes from depot_ci_get_run_status. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 a narrowly scoped resource (one failed or cancelled CI job, plus skipped dependents), and implicitly separates itself from the bulk sibling depot_ci_retry_failed_jobs. An agent can distinguish this from other depot_ci_* tools without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit when-not condition ('fails if a dependent job already started') and names the alternative to use in that case (depot_ci_retry_failed_jobs). The eligible job states (failed or cancelled) are also spelled out, so selection is unambiguous.

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