retry_webhook_event

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses: resets status to pending, clears retry schedule, triggers immediate attempt, works on any status, and overwrites historical response data. This is highly transparent about the destructive side effect.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: action, behavior details, and usage comparison. Front-loaded with main action, no fluff.

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?

Tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. Description fully covers the action, consequences, and alternatives. Nothing missing for an agent to understand when and how to use 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 100% with a single integer 'id' parameter described as 'Webhook event id'. Description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but none are needed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool re-delivers a webhook event by id, resetting it to pending and triggering immediate delivery. It distinguishes from the sibling resend_webhook_event by noting the in-place mutation behavior.

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?

Explicitly provides guidance: prefer resend_webhook_event for most cases, keep retry_webhook_event for legacy in-place semantics. Clearly states when to use and when not to.

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