retry_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it does well: it discloses mutation, the confirm/audit behavior, and that an audit event is written even on rejection. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or success/failure return behavior, leaving some side-effect transparency gaps.

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?

The description is extremely tight: three or four short clauses, each adding a distinct fact, and the most important differentiator ('only mutating tool') is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema constraints.

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?

It covers purpose, the required confirmation/reason workflow, and the audit side effect, which is solid for a small tool. Yet with no output schema and no annotation coverage, it omits return value/error behavior and does not clarify how jobId identifies a failed job, so an agent still has unresolved operational questions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only paraphrases confirm=true and 'written reason' from the schema. It never explains what jobId refers to or clarifies the meaning/format of reason beyond the schema's minLength/maxLength constraints, providing little added value for parameter understanding.

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 states the exact action ('Re-enqueues a failed job') with a specific resource, and the opening 'only mutating tool' distinguishes it from the read-style sibling tools (list_incidents, get_payment, etc.). No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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?

It clearly signals that this is the mutating option among read-only siblings, which points an agent to use it when a retry action is needed rather than a query. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., after investigating with list_job_attempts), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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