_replay_dlq_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It declares the tool is mutative ('Reset'), scoped (dlq.replay), and audited. However, it does not detail potential side effects (e.g., impact on retry count, duplicate handling) or required permissions beyond the scope note. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise at 20 words, conveying purpose, scope, and audit status in two short sentences. Every phrase adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 has 2 parameters (one undocumented in schema and description) and an output schema not referenced, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention prerequisites (outbox_id must exist), how the output signals success, or any constraints (e.g., rate limits). The presence of siblings is ignored, missing an opportunity to contrast.

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 input schema has two parameters (api_token, outbox_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. The 'outbox_id' is not described as the identifier for the DLQ entry, nor is 'api_token' clarified. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('Reset a DLQ outbox entry back to pending') and the effect ('so the worker retries it'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also includes scope (dlq.replay) and audit note, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like _get_dlq_depth or batch operations like _drain_dlq.

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 for replaying a single DLQ message but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings exist (e.g., _drain_dlq for bulk removal). The agent must infer context from the name and description.

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