Replay a failed job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cloning behavior, credit gate, and error codes, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or whether the original job remains unchanged.

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 sentences, no filler. Purpose is stated first, followed by behavioral details. Every sentence adds 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return behavior. It covers error codes but not success response (e.g., new job id). Missing information for a mutation tool creating a new resource.

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 already describes the parameter as 'Failed job id to replay.' The description adds context about cloning and credit gate, but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: re-run a permanently-failed job by cloning it into a fresh pending job. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like replay_buffer_item.

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 description implies when to use (on permanently-failed jobs) and provides error conditions (409 if not failed, 402 if out of credits). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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