tb_requeue

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

With no annotations and no behavioral detail, the description offers zero transparency about side effects, authorization requirements, or failure modes. For a complex mutation tool, the agent is blind to what requeueing entails, making it highly risky to invoke.

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, technically concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks any elaboration on parameters, usage, or behaviors, which is not true conciseness but rather insufficiency.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's workflow, required context, or expected results, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. The schema itself provides only types and constraints, so the agent cannot infer the meaning of task_id, expected_revision, idempotency_key, or the nested recover_active_dependents object. This is a critical gap.

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 states a specific verb ('explicitly requeue') and resource ('a recovered direct-v1 task'), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like tb_claim or tb_recover_claims by specifying the requeue action, though it could more explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tb_recover_claims or tb_claim. The description gives no context on prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion scenarios, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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