retry_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the mutation (reset to 'pending', retry budget refreshed), the precondition (status must be 'failed'), rejection on non-failed states, and a not-found error for a missing task_id.

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?

Four dense sentences, all carrying real information (precondition, effect, return, error cases) with the mutation front-loaded. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description specifies the return value (task_id and new status 'pending') and all failure modes, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that task_id must refer to a failed task but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Re-queue') and resource ('permanently FAILED archive task') with an explicit example motivation (transient 403/429). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/read tools (archive_url, get_archive_status, archive_and_cite).

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?

Gives strong state-based gating: 'Only tasks whose status is failed can be retried' and enumerates the rejected states (pending/processing/success). It does not name a sibling alternative to use instead, but the when/when-not guidance is otherwise explicit.

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