Retry a failed delivery

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

Annotations already disclose the key traits: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not warn that a non-idempotent retry may produce duplicate deliveries, nor explain what happens if the retry fails again. With annotations already carrying the safety profile, this is a thin contribution.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the action stated first. 'Explicitly' is mildly redundant filler but the description is otherwise tight.

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 mutating, non-idempotent retry with no output schema, the description omits essential context: the state a delivery must be in, whether retries can duplicate deliveries, and what the caller gets back. Annotations cover safety hints but not the operational behavior an agent needs before invoking it.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. Calling it an 'eventId' does convey that the id identifies the event being retried, which is more than the bare schema offers, but the name mismatch with the schema's 'id' risks confusing the agent about what value to pass.

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 dead-letter delivery), which is enough to distinguish it from the surrounding scrape/crawl/delivery-listing siblings. It is slightly clouded by referring to 'the same eventId' when the sole schema property is named 'id', leaving ambiguity about whether these are the same identifier.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the delivery must be in dead-letter state), and no mention of when not to retry. The word 'Explicitly' hints at manual triggering but gives no operational context.

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