ffv2_job_retry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: prior partial results are preserved ('পুরোনো partial অক্ষুণ্ণ থাকবে'), which tells the agent retrying will not wipe existing output. It stops short of warning about duplicate retries despite idempotentHint=false.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the non-destructive guarantee as a trailing clause. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be skimmed past.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the safety profile by annotations, so the description only needs the retry semantics. It covers eligibility and output preservation but leaves open whether the retry produces a new job id and what errors occur for ineligible jobs — meaningful gaps for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. It indirectly clarifies that job_id should reference a failed/stopped job, but never mentions the 32-character hex format or what happens if an ineligible job id is passed.

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?

States a specific action and resource — queue a failed/stopped job into a new attempt — which is clearly distinct from siblings like ffv2_job_cancel and ffv2_job_status. The only deduction is that the description is written in Bengali while the tool name and all sibling names are English, adding a small parsing burden.

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/stopped job' establishes a clear eligibility precondition, implicitly excluding running or completed jobs. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., use ffv2_job_status to confirm a job is actually failed before retrying) or state explicit exclusions.

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