dlq_retry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the message becomes a new pending message, but it does not clarify whether the original dead-letter entry is removed, whether permissions are required, or how failures are handled. This is a moderate gap for a state-changing operation.

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 sentence directly states the action and method. There is no redundant information, and the most important detail (retry dead-letter) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what happens to the message and what input is needed. It does not describe return value or error conditions, but these are less critical given the simple nature of the operation. The context of sibling names adds further clarity.

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 schema describes 'dlq_id' as the 'Dead-letter queue entry ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, but it reinforces that the ID refers to a dead-letter message. Baseline of 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Retry a dead-letter message' with the mechanism 're-inserting it as a new pending message.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dlq_list (list) and dlq_purge (purge).

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 implies when to use this tool (when a dead-letter message needs retrying) and, through context, when not to (for listing or purging). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough for the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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