easysourceflow_retry_job

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write, non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it creates a new job, but doesn't disclose side effects like whether original job is modified or if retry is always allowed. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Single sentence with 10 words, front-loaded action, no wasted text. Appropriately concise.

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?

Has 4 params all documented, but no output schema and description doesn't specify return structure (e.g., job ID vs full object). Missing some operational context (e.g., whether job starts immediately). Adequate but not fully complete.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'retry' and resource 'job', with outcome 'return the new job'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_job (status) or cancel_job (cancel), and submit_batch (new submission).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like submitting a new batch or checking job status. Missing explicit context for preferred scenarios.

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