mailkite_retry_delivery

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the authentication requirement (management session token), which is useful context. However, it does not explain the consequences of re-delivery (e.g., whether it creates a duplicate webhook call, whether it fails if the message is already delivered, or what happens on success/error). It adds some value but does not fully disclose behavioral implications.

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 exceptionally short: two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Re-deliver a stored message to its webhook') and places the token requirement only secondary. Every clause adds some useful information. It is concise, but not as full as it could be without becoming bloated.

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 simple one-parameter tool this description covers only the action and a required credential. It does not indicate the return format (no output schema) or any errors (e.g., message not found, already retried). It also fails to mention how this differs from the sibling 'mailkite_retry_deliveries', which might be the obvious alternative. The description is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it without external context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'id' (described as 'Path parameter `id`'). The description provides no additional meaning for this parameter, so it does not improve on the schema. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, which 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Re-deliver a stored message to its webhook.' This identifies a specific action (re-delivery) and resource (stored message), and is understandable on its own. It does not explicitly compare to the sibling 'mailkite_retry_deliveries' (plural), but the singular form and mention of 'a stored message' imply a single-item operation.

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 only usage hint is a prerequisite: 'Requires a management session token.' There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the alternative 'mailkite_retry_deliveries', no mention of typical scenarios (e.g., when a webhook delivery fails), and no discussion of prerequisites beyond the token. The tool cannot be placed in context relative to its siblings.

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