retry_delivery

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the critical behavior of returning 409 on invalid states and the return format (updated delivery row). It also references a schema resource for statuses.

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 well-structured sentences: purpose, condition/error, recommendation, example. No redundancy. 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?

With a single parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context: what, when, when not, error handling, and example. No gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds concrete meaning by specifying the delivery's public id format (del_xyz) and gives an example usage, going 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 'Re-enqueue a failed or dead-lettered delivery,' specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_delivery or send_to_endpoint, though the unique behavior (re-enqueue) is implicit.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (only on failed or dead_letter status), when not to use (other statuses return 409), and recommends checking status first with get_delivery. Provides an example invocation.

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