retry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It implies a state mutation (delivery moves out of failed/needs_review/dead_letter into pending) but says nothing about required permissions, whether the retry is idempotent, what happens to an already-pending delivery, or side effects such as counters or dead-letter audit records.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and the accepted source states. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the rest is thin: a mutation tool with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no timing/permission caveats. An agent could guess the intent but not reliably construct a valid call.

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% and three parameters exist, so the description must compensate for that gap and does not. It never mentions recipient, message_id, or not_before, leaving an agent with no clue how to identify a specific delivery to retry or what the not_before delay controls.

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 names a specific action (returning deliveries to the pending queue) and the exact source states it acts on (failed/needs_review/dead_letter), so the agent can tell this is a retry/re-queue operation rather than a cancel or ack. It does not explicitly contrast itself against any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the listed statuses signal that this tool is for recovering deliveries stuck in terminal failure states. There is no explicit 'use this when / do not use this when' guidance, nor any named alternative (e.g. cancel or send) for the opposite case.

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