retryBulkCall

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond those hints by stating that the operation re-queues without creating a new campaign and that retried contacts keep their original variables. It does not fully enumerate consequences, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose file, followed by useful usage context and an important side-effect note. It is concise overall, though the colloquial examples and the 'Tags: Bulk calls' line add a little extra prose that is not strictly necessary.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main operational context: when to call it, what it does, and a key preservation guarantee. It does not describe response behavior or failure modes, but the schema fully covers the request parameters and the annotations clarify the safety profile, making this adequate for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the parameters max_retries, retry_strategy, and failure_reasons are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no per-parameter detail and only frames the general purpose, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Re-queue contacts that did not connect, without creating a new campaign.' This directly distinguishes the tool from other bulk-call tools that start or create campaigns, and the title 'Retry unconnected contacts' reinforces the purpose.

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 gives clear, contextual when-to-use guidance: 'after a campaign finishes with more no-answers than you expected' or when the failure was on the caller's side. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended trigger conditions are unmistakable.

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