retry_notification_failures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (retry) and a limit of 100, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, idempotency, response format, or potential side effects. Minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is directly front-loaded with the key action and constraints.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations or output schema. The description omits critical details such as expected response, error behavior, permission requirements, and idempotency. For a tool that modifies state, this is insufficient.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context ('failed webhook notifications', 'up to 100') but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('retries') and resource ('failed webhook notifications') with constraints ('up to 100', 'by their failure IDs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_notification_failures'.

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 after obtaining failure IDs (e.g., from list_notification_failures), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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