Replay PromptJang event

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world action. The description adds valuable context by stating that it is non-billable, changes delivery state, and does not delete or overwrite the source event. This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and result, then adds the key side-effect clarification. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values beyond noting the new replay event ID. It covers the key behavioral context: non-billable, non-destructive, delivery-state-changing, and source-preserving. Minor gaps like prerequisites or failure cases are not significant enough to lower further.

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 input schema already documents event_id and response_format. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond referencing an 'existing PromptJang event', which maps naturally to event_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Create a non-billable replay') on a specific resource ('existing PromptJang event') with a clear method ('using its stored payload and registered target'). It also differentiates from siblings like send_event by emphasizing 'non-billable' and 'existing event'.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an existing PromptJang event needs to be re-delivered without billing, using its stored payload. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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