retry_queue_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state reset to New, the error condition for non-eligible states, and the optimistic concurrency control mechanism via row_version. This goes beyond basic mutation descriptions, though it does not mention return values or side effects beyond the state change.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief usage constraint paragraph, and a simple Args list. No superfluous content; every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, applicable states, error condition, concurrency, and parameter semantics. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but with no output schema, that is not strictly necessary. Minor gap could be mentioning any required permissions, but overall it is complete enough.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaning to all three parameters. It explains queue_item_id as the ID, row_version as the value from get_queue_items preventing stale retries, and folder_name as the display name. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states the tool's function: 'Retry a Failed or Abandoned queue item, resetting it to New so robots will pick it up again.' This is a specific verb (retry), resource (queue item), and state change (resetting to New), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_queue_item or delete_queue_item.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: only for items with status Failed or Abandoned, explicitly stating other states will return an API error. It also implies the need to first fetch items via get_queue_items to obtain row_version. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it falls just 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.