retry_webhook_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the main side effect—creating a new delivery attempt—and explains the access requirement of a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY. It does not detail all potential side effects like duplicate attempts or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action and its effect, then adds necessary access instructions. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes operational information.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what happens, the payload behavior, the endpoint target, and access prerequisites. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the response shape or possible error conditions, but this is not critical 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing id as 'Webhook delivery ID to retry.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 verb and resource: 'Retry a failed webhook delivery.' It further clarifies the behavior by stating it 'creates a new delivery attempt with the same payload to the configured endpoint,' which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_webhook_delivery and list_webhook_deliveries.

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 identifies the use case: retrying a failed webhook delivery. It also gives an important exclusion by noting that start_login does NOT open this tool, which prevents an agent from pursuing the wrong access path. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for inspection, but the context is clear enough.

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