studio_retry

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does an excellent job: discloses non-blocking behavior, return values (task_id, status), that task_id equals artifact id, the need to poll studio_status, and synchronous refusal conditions (rate limit/quota/not-retryable). This exceeds typical transparency expectations.

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 tight paragraphs front-load the purpose and then efficiently pack behavioral details, return values, and error handling into compact, high-value sentences. No filler or repetition.

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 two params, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, return values, polling strategy, and error cases. It provides agents with enough operational detail to invoke and follow up correctly, making it functionally complete.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description states 'Accepts a notebook/artifact name or ID', clarifying that both parameters accept either a name or ID. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type, though it does not elaborate on what constitutes a notebook or artifact in this context.

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?

Description opens with 'Retry a failed Studio artifact in place', a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the action and scope. It explicitly references the UI 'Retry' action and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like studio_generate by focusing on retrying existing failed artifacts.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (retrying a failed artifact) and instructs polling via studio_status after acceptance. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for regeneration, so it stops short of a 5.

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