retry_failed

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes further by defining the blast radius: already-published platforms are never re-posted, non-transient failures are refused rather than retried, and refusals come back with their fix. That converts a scary destructive flag into a predictable, scoped mutation.

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 sentences, all load-bearing, with the core action front-loaded before the eligibility rules and the prerequisite check. The long parenthetical enumerations of failure causes are the only place density tips toward clutter.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the refusal path (returned with their fix) but not the success return shape — whether it reports which platforms were re-queued or what the post status becomes. For a single-parameter tool this is nearly complete, with that one return-side gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already states it must be a post with status failed or partially_published. The description adds only the tie-in to get_post's platformResults, which is guidance rather than new meaning for the id itself, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (retry) and a precisely bounded resource (platforms that failed on a post with status failed or partially_published). The scope qualifier alone separates it from publish_post and update_post, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through a prerequisite step (check get_post → platformResults[].errorClass / .fix first) and spells out the acceptance condition: only transient classifications (outage, rate limit, network) are re-queued. It also names the exclusion cases (account reconnect, X API credits, TikTok visibility, payload-caused failures) so the agent knows when this call will be refused.

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