retry_failed_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool re-queues jobs based on failure stage, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention permissions needed, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if no failed jobs exist, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains the two failure scenarios. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or side effects, which are important for an agent to use it correctly without structured output guidance.

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%, with the single parameter 'feedId' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('retry') and resource ('failed jobs for a feed'), specifying that it re-queues jobs based on their failure stage (scraping or enrichment). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_jobs' or 'trigger_feed_run' by focusing on retrying only failed jobs rather than deleting, creating, or triggering new runs.

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 usage when jobs have failed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_jobs' or 'trigger_feed_run'. It provides context about failure types (scraping vs. enrichment) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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