Resend a webhook delivery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it states this creates a new delivery with the same body and event id, explains the dedupe implication via Parley-Event-Id, notes sent_at reflects the new send, says the media download link is fresh, and warns of an ~10 second wait for the outcome. The enabled-webhook requirement is an explicit precondition.

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?

Purpose and id source are front-loaded, and each clause (dedupe, sent_at, media link, latency, precondition) carries real information. The stacked parentheses make it denser than necessary and slightly harder to scan than a bulleted structure would be.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, timing, and preconditions well. It never states what the call returns (e.g. the new delivery id or status), which the agent would otherwise want since no output schema exists.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by directing the agent to list_webhooks to obtain a delivery id. It doesn't add format or validation detail beyond that, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

"Send a past delivery's event again" gives a specific verb and resource, and names list_webhooks as the source of the delivery id. An agent can distinguish this from test_webhook or create_webhook without inspecting schemas.

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?

It supplies a concrete use case ("e.g. after fixing a receiver") and a precondition ("the webhook must be on"), plus a note that test events work regardless of enabled state. It stops short of explicitly naming test_webhook as the alternative for synthetic events, but the context is clear.

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