requeue_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation (requeue), but does not explain side effects, whether it is idempotent, required permissions, or what happens to the original message state. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 minimally viable: it states the action and enough context for selection, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, given no output schema and no annotations, it omits behavioral details like response format or side effects, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 each parameter has a descriptive name and description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Re-queue') with a clear resource ('message') and scope ('failed or stuck message for reprocessing by its connector'). It conveys both the action and its purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_transaction or get_connector.

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 phrase 'failed or stuck message' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools. The usage context is inferred rather than stated, so it meets the threshold for implied usage but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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