retry_inbound

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds the core redelivery behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or whether routing is re-evaluated beyond the implied 'back on the delivery queue.'

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. The example use case is compact and adds meaningful context without bloating the description.

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?

For a single-parameter operation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It could explicitly mention obtaining the id from list_inbound/get_inbound, but the low complexity and clear schema make this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 the single id parameter is already described as a numeric message id. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without needing to compensate.

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 ('Put an inbound message back on the delivery queue') and the resource (inbound message), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from related siblings like list_inbound, get_inbound, and bypass_inbound by the redelivery framing.

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 'for instance after fixing the route it should have matched' provides a concrete scenario, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast retry_inbound with alternatives like bypass_inbound or state when retry is not appropriate.

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