ytptube_retry_history_item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (may mutate) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds the nuance that only saved download-request fields are requeued, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the history item's status changes, whether a new task is created, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be slightly clearer about the 'requeue' concept.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the caller can expect in return (e.g., the new task, a confirmation, or an error). It also omits details about side effects, prerequisites, and error conditions. For a mutation tool with a single parameter, this is a notable gap.

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 input schema shows one required parameter 'id' but provides no description. The tool description also does not explain what 'id' refers to, leaving it to inference from the tool name. With schema coverage at 0% and only a type/range definition, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter meaning.

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 specifies a concrete action: 'Read a history item and requeue only saved download-request fields.' This clearly identifies the verb (read/requeue) and resource (history item), distinguishing it from siblings like get_history_item (which likely only reads) and add_downloads (which adds new downloads). However, the meaning of 'requeue' is not fully elaborated, so it's not completely unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrying or resubmitting a history item, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_history_item or add_downloads. There are no clear 'when' or 'when not' conditions, so the guidance is only implied by the name and description.

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