Retry project job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the write/side-effect profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful detail about the return wrapper (response plus Job model) and the MissingParameterError/ParameterError conditions, but says nothing about permissions, whether the retry creates a child job, or what happens to the original job.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the remainder is stock docstring scaffolding (Args/Returns/Raises) and the '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' framing is misleading given the schema explicitly enumerates 11 fields. Several lines earn little.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and no required-parameter declaration, the description is thin: it covers the existence of a Job return and two error types but leaves the pagination, scope, and job-variable parameters unexplained and omits any job-state precondition.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it addresses only project_id and job_id as 'kwargs' examples. Nine parameters — page, scope, per_page, max_pages, pipeline_id, total_pages, api_parameters, include_retried, job_variable_attributes — receive no explanation anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retry a specific job within a project.' That cleanly separates it from siblings like gitlab_cancel_project_job, gitlab_run_project_job, and gitlab_erase_project_job, though the description never names those alternatives itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to retry versus run/play a job or cancel it, no prerequisites about job state (e.g. job must be failed), and no mention of when include_retried or job_variable_attributes matter. The agent is left to infer everything about selection.

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