Reprocess a rejected e-mail (write)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely valuable behavioral trait — that writes are gated behind an environment flag — which is real context an agent cannot get from the schema. However, it says nothing about side effects, idempotency, reversibility, or what happens to the rejected message, which is a significant gap 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?

Two short fragments with no filler, front-loaded with the route and followed by the prerequisite. It is terse to the point of being under-specified, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition is too thin. An agent still does not know what reprocessing accomplishes, whether it is idempotent or safe to repeat, or what a successful call yields.

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 one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's path template '/rejected/{request_id}/reprocess' is the only signal that request_id identifies the rejected e-mail and is passed as a path segment. That is modest added value, but the name is largely self-describing and no format or sourcing guidance is given.

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 is essentially the tool name expressed as an HTTP route: 'POST /rejected/{request_id}/reprocess'. Combined with the title it makes the verb+resource recoverable, but the description itself does not say in words what reprocessing does, nor does it differentiate from the read sibling list_rejected_emails.

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 only guidance is a configuration prerequisite ('Requires AIOTIC_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=true'), which is useful but is not a when-to-use rule. Nothing states when a rejected e-mail should be reprocessed, or how this differs from retry_order or re-uploading via upload_order.

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