redrive_mailbox_webhook_delivery

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses the core operation (re-queue a dead-lettered delivery for retry) but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 a single sentence plus an imperative instruction, both front-loaded with key information. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: purpose, precondition (failed_permanent), and a reference to the source of delivery_id. It is adequately complete for a focused retry action.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, including contextual hints like 'from list_mailbox_webhook_deliveries' for delivery_id and usage note for mailbox. The description adds no extra parameter info, so baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'Re-queue a dead-lettered (failed_permanent) webhook delivery' and specifies the use case 'after fixing the consumer endpoint'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mailbox_webhook_deliveries by focusing on the re-queue operation.

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 explicitly says 'Use after fixing the consumer endpoint', providing clear context for when to invoke. It implies the delivery must be in failed_permanent state, but does not explicitly exclude other states or mention alternatives.

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