taiga_webhooklogs_resend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It labels the action as 'resend' (a mutation) but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or whether duplicate deliveries could occur. This leaves the agent unaware of potential consequences.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It clearly communicates the action and target in fewer than ten words.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after the resend, prerequisites, or how failures are reported. The agent lacks sufficient context to predict behavior beyond the basic intent.

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% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'Webhook log ID'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description 'Resend a failed webhook delivery' uses a specific verb (resend) and resource (failed webhook delivery). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like webhooklogs_get (retrieve a log), webhooklogs_list (list logs), and webhooks_test (test a webhook configuration).

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 phrase 'failed webhook delivery' establishes clear context: use this when a delivery has failed and needs to be retried. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit alternative guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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