Retry Campaign Email Wave

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the resend is partial and idempotent-safe in intent — only backend-eligible failures, never successful or uncertain recipients. It does not mention what happens on partial failure, rate limits, or what a retry returns, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 tight sentences with the eligibility constraint front-loaded and the safety exclusion following immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope and safety but leaves gaps: no statement of what a successful retry yields, whether it returns per-recipient results, or how idempotency_key affects repeated calls. Adequate but not complete for a send operation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it mostly does not. 'Fresh user approval' loosely maps to send_confirmation's const 'user_authorized', but neither wave_id's role nor the critical idempotency_key (dedupe/replay semantics) is explained anywhere in prose.

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 uses a specific verb and scope: 'Send again only to backend-eligible failures' on a campaign email wave. It clearly distinguishes this from a blanket resend by scoping to eligible failures, though it never names a sibling tool (e.g., get_campaign_email_wave or list_campaign_email_waves) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use ('after fresh user approval') and an explicit exclusion ('Successful and uncertain recipients are never automatically resent'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It lacks the final layer of routing to alternatives for the non-retryable cases (e.g., which tool to inspect failures with first).

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