Retry Unprocessed Message

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuine behavioral insight by explaining that the replay repeats the original input, so the same failure recurs if the root cause is unfixed. It does not address side effects of re-processing or whether the message is removed from the parked queue afterward, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and to anticipate the main failure mode. Minor gaps: no statement of what a successful replay returns or whether the message leaves the unprocessed list.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating that message_id identifies the message to replay. The description's mention of "original input" contextually ties to message_id but adds no new syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Replay a parked message") plus the mechanism ("through its component"), which clearly separates it from sibling reads like get_unprocessed_message, list_unprocessed_messages, and delete_unprocessed_message. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the operation 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 second sentence gives a real precondition for use: fix the underlying flow before replaying, because the same input will be re-sent and will fail again. This is actionable when-to-use context, but no explicit alternative action is named (e.g. when to delete instead of retry).

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