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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the critical behavioral risk: 'Earlier side effects may be repeated.' That non-idempotency warning is exactly what an agent needs before re-invoking. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or how the retry is scheduled.

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, no filler. The action is front-loaded and the risk warning follows immediately, which is the right ordering for a mutation 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the eligible target state, and the side-effect hazard. It is nearly complete; only the permission/ownership prerequisites and expected outcome are left implicit.

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 'owned work ID' semantics are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, syntax, or ownership detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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) plus resource (work) and constrains the scope to 'reviewed failed or blocked work', which tells an agent exactly what state the target must be in. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like work_submit or work_get, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 'reviewed failed or blocked work' implies the precondition for use, and 'explicitly' hints at a manual invocation path, but no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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