Retry managed queue failed job

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's claim of 're-queue' (a state change) is consistent. However, no additional behavioral context is added beyond the basic action—e.g., whether the job is immediately processed, effects if already running, or authentication requirements. The description does not contradict 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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the action. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word 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?

Given the low complexity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not describe the return value or success/failure indicators. However, for a simple mutation tool, it covers the essential purpose and required inputs.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions: 'Failed job ID.' and 'Instance ID.'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. No further elaboration on format or source of these IDs is provided.

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 ('Re-queue a failed job') and the resource ('a failed job'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'delete_failed_job' and 'list_failed_jobs', though it does not explicitly differentiate them. The verb 'retry' in the name reinforces the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleting a failed job or listing them. The description assumes the agent knows the context of re-queuing, but does not specify prerequisites or scenarios.

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