retry_dead_letter

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the dead letter is removed, whether the retried delivery gets a new ID, whether retries are idempotent, or what permissions are required. 'Re-enqueue ... for delivery' conveys the basic effect but leaves all operational side effects undisclosed.

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 no filler, but it is so terse that it omits information the other dimensions need. It is efficient rather than padded, so it scores well here despite being under-specified elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain side effects, idempotency, and failure modes. None of that is present, so an agent has only the schema's ID definition and the bare action phrase to work with.

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?

There is a single required parameter, and the schema documents it fully as the 'Stream ID of the dead letter' (100% description coverage). The description adds no extra syntax or selection guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the work.

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 uses a specific verb ('re-enqueue') and resource ('dead letter') with its intended effect ('for delivery'), which clearly separates it from list_dead_letters and delete_dead_letter. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to retry a dead letter versus deleting it, no mention of prerequisites, and no stated alternatives. An agent must infer the correct usage context from the action name alone.

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