Plan or record an intelligent retry

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

Annotations only say the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond those annotations: retries must be bounded, and unchanged or exhausted retry loops are blocked. This gives the agent useful expectations about side effects and constraints, with no contradiction against the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and required components, the second states the key constraint. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place. The description is appropriately sized for what it conveys.

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?

The schema covers all parameters well and the description gives the core retry constraint, so the tool is basically usable. However, the title mentions 'Plan or record' while the description only explains recording, and there is no output schema or description of what happens when a retry is blocked or succeeds. The exact meaning of 'bounded' and the return behavior remain under-specified.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'change and result' which maps to proposedChange/result, and it does not add operational detail about sessionId, previousFailure, or notes. It does not need to compensate for missing schema docs.

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 action and resource: 'Record a bounded retry with its specific change and result.' It also adds the distinguishing guardrail—'Blocks unchanged or exhausted retry loops'—which separates it from sibling tools like diagnose or fix_me. The title's 'Plan or record' is somewhat broader, but the description still gives a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 this is for retrying an operation after a change and warns against unchanged or exhausted retry loops, so there is some embedded when-not guidance. However, it never explicitly states the triggering conditions for using this tool over a sibling, nor does it name alternatives. The usage context remains mostly inferred rather than directly stated.

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