rr_retry_replenishment_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses idempotency, required fields, and the stale-state conflict contract, providing essential behavioral context beyond just the operation type.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose immediately.

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 tool with 3 required params and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, key constraints (idempotency, conflict contract), and context for retry operations, though it could briefly mention expected outcomes.

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 100%; the description adds context by linking idempotency_key and expected_updated_at to the stale-state conflict contract, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 verb "Retry" clearly indicates the action, resource "replenishment action" is specific, and the scope "blocked or failed" distinguishes it from sibling tools like rr_execute_replenishment_action and rr_prepare_replenishment_action.

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 states when to use (retry blocked or failed actions) and mentions idempotency and stale-state contract, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to alternatives.

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