repeat_request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: edits are merged into the replay, matching rules fire unless bypassed, and the response carries new ids with status and time. It doesn't state how a replacement body interacts with rules or what happens on partial failures.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, then packs the edit capability, the rules caveat and the return shape with zero filler.

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 10-parameter open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the payoff (new ids, status, time) and the rules interaction. Missing pieces are the multi-send semantics of count/concurrency and whether edits affect the stored flow, but nothing essential to a correct call is absent.

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 60%, leaving url, method, remove_headers and bypass_rules without descriptions or enums. The description meaningfully explains bypass_rules ('rules apply unless') and implies the edit-to-field mapping, but leaves the remaining undocumented parameters to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a recorded request again') plus the key qualifier 'optionally edited', which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_request and list_requests. No sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clause 'rules apply unless bypass_rules' implies the replay/re-issue use case and a toggle for escaping rule processing, but it never says when to choose this over alternatives such as get_request or diff_flows, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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