reprocess_document

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

Without annotations, the description should convey behavioral traits. It mentions 're-queue' implying a non-destructive trigger, but does not clarify whether the operation is asynchronous, idempotent, or has side effects. The 'force' parameter from the schema adds some transparency, but the description does not elaborate.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and typical use cases. It could be improved by noting potential delays or that the server may reject repeated requests, but it is sufficient for an agent.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as specifying default behavior of 'force' or expected format of 'document_id'.

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 ('Re-queue a document') and the specific resource ('for OCR processing'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other sibling offers reprocessing functionality.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Useful when OCR failed or the document was updated.' It does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context makes it clear when to invoke.

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