hookbase_replay_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('re-send the original webhook payload') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and output details. It's adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent to operate confidently without additional information.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'delivery_id' fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with 0 parameters needing extra explanation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from clarity.

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 a failed delivery') and resource ('webhook payload to the destination'), distinguishing it from siblings like hookbase_bulk_replay (bulk operations) or hookbase_get_delivery (read-only). It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact scope of the operation.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'failed delivery,' suggesting it should be used when a delivery has previously failed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for successful deliveries) or name alternatives like hookbase_bulk_replay for multiple retries, leaving some ambiguity.

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