cdp_retry_provision_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action is a POST request and requires a JSON string body, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive/mutative operation (likely yes, but unstated), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by essential usage detail in the second. Both sentences are necessary and zero-waste, efficiently conveying key information without fluff.

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 complexity (a mutation tool for retrying provisioning), no annotations, and an output schema (which mitigates need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic what and how but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs) and full parameter guidance, leaving gaps for safe and correct usage.

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 compensate. It adds some meaning for 'body' ('Pass same body as initial provisioning as JSON string'), clarifying its purpose and format. However, it doesn't explain 'instance_id' (e.g., what ID this refers to) or 'tenant_id' (optional, but purpose unclear). With 3 parameters and low schema coverage, the description only partially addresses the gap.

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 action ('Retry provisioning') and resource ('a failed instance'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cdp_create_provision_instance' (initial creation) and 'cdp_reactivate_provision_instance' (reactivation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cdp_provision_instance_action' which might handle similar retry scenarios, leaving some ambiguity.

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 context by specifying 'failed instance' and 'Pass same body as initial provisioning', suggesting it's for retrying after a failure. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'cdp_reactivate_provision_instance' or 'cdp_update_provision_instance', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., instance must be in a failed state).

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