retry_pipeline

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool reads the pipeline first so priorState captures the pre-retry status, that a retry is a new run with no undo, and that dry_run previews the effect. This is consistent with (and enriches) destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false.

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 [WRITE][risk=medium] and the core action, followed by tight behavioral notes and an Args block. The 'Irreversible ... no undo' line partially restates what destructiveHint already conveys, a minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers irreversibility, preview path, and prior-state recording. It omits what the call returns and any error/precondition behavior when the pipeline is not in a failed/canceled state, which keeps it short of fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: project (id or 'group/project' / 'owner/repo' path), pipeline (id sourced from list_pipelines), dry_run (preview semantics), and target (config server target, omit for default). Every one of the four parameters is given meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Retry a failed/canceled pipeline') and constrains scope to failed/canceled pipelines, which distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_pipeline or pipeline_detail without needing to open any 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?

Implies the right context (failed/canceled pipelines) and gives preview guidance via dry_run=True, plus an explicit irreversibility warning. It does not, however, name alternatives such as undo_apply/undo_list for recovering state, so the when-not/alternative side is left to inference.

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