hookbase_bulk_replay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the purpose and context. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a safe operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens to already-succeeded deliveries. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single well-documented parameter, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what 'retry' means operationally, what the response looks like, or potential side effects, which would be helpful for an agent using this tool.

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 100% (parameter 'delivery_ids' is well-documented in schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema already fully describes the single parameter.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Retry multiple failed deliveries') and resource ('deliveries'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'hookbase_replay_delivery' (singular) and 'hookbase_list_deliveries' (list only). It explicitly mentions bulk operation ('at once') and the target state ('failed deliveries').

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for recovering from destination outages') and implies it's for retrying failed deliveries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'hookbase_replay_delivery' for single retries, though the sibling tool list makes this distinction apparent.

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