retry_message

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action (retry) and the HTTP method, but omits idempotency, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens if the message is not in a failed state. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 very short (three lines) and includes the HTTP path, which may be extraneous. However, it is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Could be restructured to remove redundancy (title repetition).

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 retry mutation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action but lacks preconditions (message must be failed), side effects, and error handling. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100% but parameter descriptions are minimal ('(path parameter)'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond identifying which conversation and message are involved. It does not explain how to obtain cuuid/uuid or their formats.

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 retries sending a failed message in a specified conversation, using the verb 'Retries' and identifying the resource as a failed message. This distinguishes it from siblings like send_message (sends new) and get_message (retrieves).

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 usage when a message has failed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for successfully sent messages) or mention alternatives like send_message. Guidance is minimal, leaving inference to the agent.

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