Studio Retry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses non-blocking asynchronous semantics, the return shape (task_id equal to artifact id, plus new status), the required polling step, and the failure modes. It omits idempotency/side-effect details and any auth or permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the async contract, then the error case. No filler and every clause adds operational value.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is optional, yet the description nonetheless conveys the async contract and error behavior thoroughly. It falls slightly short on permission/rate-limit specifics and on what 'in place' means for the existing artifact state.

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 0% and the two params (notebook, artifact) are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by stating both accept a 'notebook/artifact name or ID', but it does not clearly bind which param takes which name/id, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Specific verb + resource with scope: 'Retry a failed Studio artifact in place', plus a mapping to the UI 'Retry' action. It clearly distinguishes itself from studio_generate (creates) and studio_status (polls) by naming the polling sibling explicitly.

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?

Tells the agent the precondition (a failed artifact) and the follow-up workflow: poll studio_status(notebook, task_id) until complete. Also notes that refusals (rate limit / quota / not-retryable) surface as synchronous errors. No explicit when-not guidance beyond 'not-retryable', but the context is clear.

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