supportpages_retry_operation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them: it reuses operation and target rather than creating new state, rechecks permissions, and explicitly cannot overwrite an old snapshot. That is useful non-obvious context.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then the exception case. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description covers the failure/remediation flow, permission recheck, and the revision-conflict limitation, which is the key correctness hazard. The only gap is the undocumented workspace parameter and no explicit statement of what a successful retry returns.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains expected_attempt well (current attempt from get_operation) and implies operation_id is the reused operation, but workspace is never addressed. It compensates for about two of three parameters at a baseline level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Explicitly retry a failed hosted operation') and scopes it against the generic retry semantics by noting it reuses the operation and target. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like supportpages_retry_article or supportpages_get_operation without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the trigger condition ('after fixing its reported prerequisite'), the required input provenance ('Pass the current attempt from get_operation'), and an alternative path for revision conflicts ('require a new request with a freshly read revision'). Strong guidance, though it does not name the sibling tool to use in that conflict case or state when not to retry at all.

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