retry_sync_run

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so it's a mutation but not destructive. The description adds specifics: resets failed jobs to PENDING and reopens the run. It doesn't discuss potential side effects like triggering background processes or any cost implications, but given annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended efficiently. No wasted words; 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?

The description is complete for a simple retry action with two parameters. It states the precondition, the action, and the state changes. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. It doesn't mention error cases or constraints, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%: both runId and projectId have clear descriptions ('Failed sync run ID' and 'Connected project ID'). The description doesn't add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 a failed sync run, with specific details (resets failed jobs to PENDING and reopens the run). It distinguishes from siblings like confirm_sync_run or skip_sync_run by specifying the target status and behavior.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to first use get_sync_run and get_sync_run_jobs to explain the failure, which sets a clear precondition. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., non-failed runs) or alternative tools like confirm_sync_run or skip_sync_run, though the context implies those are for different purposes.

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