Retry failed export items

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructive=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that verified items are never reuploaded, and that only failed/retryable items are touched. This safety constraint is not derivable from annotations alone, so it adds transparency.

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 is front-loaded with the core behavior and adds a safety constraint without any fluff. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary details or repetition.

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 retry operation with two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide essential context. It does not explain what job_id refers to, how idempotency_key should be generated or used, whether there are prerequisites (e.g., checking export status first), or what the output schema contains. An agent cannot confidently call this tool based on the description alone.

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 for explaining job_id and idempotency_key. It does not mention either parameter, leaving their meaning, format, or relationship to the retry operation entirely undefined. The names are self-explanatory to a human but not to an agent needing precise semantics (e.g., how to obtain job_id, idempotency_key generation rules).

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 action: retry only failed/retryable items, and explicitly excludes verified items. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_export_plan or get_export_status. The phrase 'never reuploads verified items' adds a precise scope.

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 it should be used when there are failed items to retry, but it does not explicitly say when to call it (e.g., after checking status) or when not to use it (e.g., if all items succeeded). No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate workflow from sibling tool names.

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