octri_retry_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "In place" usefully signals that existing build state is mutated rather than a new build created, but it omits auth/permission requirements, what happens to already-succeeded languages, and how partial failures surface.

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 zero redundancy, and the in-place scoping plus the omit-to-retry rule are both front-loaded.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but leaves out side effects on prior successful artifacts and any permission prerequisites, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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 coverage is only 33% (only project_id is documented in the schema). The description rescues `languages` semantics (named languages; omit to retry failures), but adds nothing about build_id, and project_id's fallback behavior is already in the schema.

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+resource+scope: re-running selected languages of an existing build, in place. It is clearly distinguishable from octri_trigger_build (which creates a new build), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit conditional behavior: omit `languages` to retry only the failed ones. That tells the agent when the omission path applies, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over triggering a fresh build or diffing/validating instead.

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