Retry failed post

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

The description is unusually transparent: it explains partial-failure retry behavior, the special 'unconfirmed' status trap, the exact 400 error code, the user-confirmation workflow, and the risk of duplicating posts with republish. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so this behavioral context adds substantial value beyond structured fields.

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, then methodically addresses scope, the unconfirmed edge case, the error code, and the practical user action. Every sentence carries operational weight; no filler or restatement of the schema is present.

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?

The tricky partial-failure and unconfirmed semantics are fully covered, as is the actionable error path. With no output schema, the only minor gap is that the success/response shape (e.g., per-platform results) is not characterized, but this is secondary for a retry operation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have solid descriptions. The tool description enriches the republish parameter by tying it to the UNCONFIRMED_REQUIRES_REPUBLISH error and the user-confirmation process, which tells the agent when the boolean must be set. This pushes it above the baseline 3.

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 publishing a failed or partially failed post' – a specific verb and resource that goes beyond the title. It clarifies scope by stating only failed platforms are retried, distinguishing it from publish_post and other sibling publishing tools without needing to name them.

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 closing sentence provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a post failed on some platforms and the user wants to retry just those.' It also gives a when-not via the 400 UNCONFIRMED_REQUIRES_REPUBLISH path, instructing the agent to ask the user to verify the platform before passing republish. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools explicitly, so not a 5.

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