ig_queue_retry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies eligible item states but says nothing about mutation effects, whether the retry is immediate or deferred, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens to the item's existing schedule.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good. However, its extreme brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, and it provides no structure around the optional 'when' parameter.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters at 0% schema coverage, this description is too thin. It does not explain the action's effect, the role of 'when,' or what the caller should expect after rescheduling.

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 explain the parameters. It does not: 'id' is only implicitly referenced by 'queue item,' and the optional 'when' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning and format completely undefined.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Re-schedule' a 'queue item.' It also narrows scope to failed/cancelled/pending items. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings such as ig_queue_cancel or ig_schedule, 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?

The description implies usage by naming eligible item states ('failed/cancelled/pending'), but it never explicitly says when to choose this over ig_queue_cancel or ig_schedule. There are no prerequisites or exclusions, leaving alternatives to inference.

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