exchange_retry_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is a retry, but omits side effects, permissions, idempotence, or whether it affects all messages in the queue.

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 short and free of filler, but it is closer to under-specification than to genuinely helpful conciseness. The parenthetical "troubleshooting" is marginal and does not provide useful structure.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not clarify what a retry does, what the required identity must look like beyond the schema example, what the server parameter is for, or what the return value indicates.

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 only 50%, with the server parameter undocumented, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The identity parameter's format example comes from the schema, not the description, so the description fails to compensate for the missing server semantics.

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?

"Retry a queue" names a specific verb and resource, and the troubleshooting hint makes the operation's intent reasonably clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like exchange_suspend_queue, but the action is not ambiguous enough to be considered vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. "Troubleshooting" only implies a broad context and does not mention queue states, suspended queues, or related sibling operations.

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