beel_retry_webhook_delivery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavior: it immediately resends the original payload, records a new delivery entry while keeping the original, and emphasizes that the payload is the one captured at event time (not a fresh snapshot). This goes well beyond annotations, clarifying side effects (new entry) and the snapshot nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two clear sentences plus an endpoint line. It front-loaded the primary action ('Re-sends the original payload') and adds the key nuance about the payload being original. Every sentence adds value without filler; however, it could be tightened by integrating the endpoint into the first sentence, though it remains appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 description explains the core behavior, side effects, and payload semantics, which is complete for a retry action. It omits explicit usage guidance vs. alternatives (covered under usage_guidelines) but schema descriptions already handle error codes and idempotency. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is needed. The only gap is the lack of explicit 'when to use vs. siblings', but overall the definition is nearly complete.

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 100%, and each parameter in the schema already carries detailed semantic descriptions (e.g., account_id explains 403 behavior, webhook_id explains 404, idempotency_key explains blind retry vs. collision). This description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides; it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting and description adds nothing extra for params.

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 states a specific verb ('re-sends the original payload') and resource ('a delivery'), and clarifies its scope precisely. It distinguishes itself from siblings like beel_retry_payment_event (different resource) and beel_test_webhook_subscription (test vs. actual retry) by focusing on delivery retry with retained original entry. The action is unambiguous and unique among a large sibling set.

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 explains what the tool does and its payload behavior, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives (e.g., beel_retry_payment_event or beel_test_webhook_subscription). There is no 'use this when...' guidance or exclusions. The context implies usage for replaying a failed delivery, but the dimension requires explicit alternatives or conditions; this is only implied.

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