seerr_retry_request

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the explicit warning that it modifies the Seerr instance, reinforcing the write nature. However, it doesn't disclose the exact effects of retrying (e.g., whether it duplicates the request, if it's idempotent, or what happens to the failed request).

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that conveys the action and a warning. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 single-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks important behavioral context such as the definition of a 'failed request,' idempotency, or error conditions. The sibling list includes related request operations, but the description doesn't position it among them.

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 contains one undocumented parameter, request_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explicitly define request_id, leaving its meaning to be inferred from the tool name and parameter name alone. This is a significant gap for a low-coverage schema.

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 clearly identifies the action as 'Retry failed request' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like seerr_update_request or seerr_set_request_status by focusing on retrying, though it doesn't explain what retrying entails.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when retrying is appropriate, or any exclusionary context. The description lacks any usage context beyond the bare action.

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