Retry messaging messages

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it affects the live CPI system, cannot be undone, retries ALL failed messages tenant-wide, and requires user confirmation. This gives the agent critical warning information not present in the annotation.

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 tight sentences with the DESTRUCTIVE warning front-loaded. Every clause adds necessary information: scope, method, live-system impact, irreversibility, and user confirmation.

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 zero-parameter, destructive operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, its exact scope, why it is dangerous, and what precondition must be met before invoking it.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully defines the input surface. Per the zero-parameter baseline, no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 ('Retries') and a specific resource ('ALL failed JMS messages on the tenant'), and it names the underlying function import and HTTP method. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_messaging_messages or move_messaging_messages.

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 intended use is implied: retry failed JMS messages, and only after user confirmation. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_messaging_messages or move_messaging_messages for non-destructive or selective operations.

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