Replay an event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly addresses quota impact and repeat-call safety, which are the main side-effect concerns for a replay operation. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but the key non-destructive and low-cost traits are conveyed.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important quota/safety caveat is placed immediately after, making the key information easy to scan.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and a critical side-effect. It lacks explicit return-value or error-handling guidance, but the low complexity and clear required id make the tool invocable with confidence.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both id and api_key. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Re-send') and resource ('a stored event to its destinations'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling anyhook_replay_failed, which would target failed events. The title 'Replay an event' aligns with the description rather than merely restating it.

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?

Description gives clear usage context: it is safe to call repeatedly while debugging and does not consume monthly event quota. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the debugging-oriented guidance is actionable and clear.

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