Retry Cloudflare Domain

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: the exact refusal conditions, that each refusal is reported in the message, and that a retry without fixing the cause will be skipped again — useful state-machine context absent from the annotations. It does not explain why the operation is marked destructive (what prior move state is discarded).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by failure modes and the prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, refusal conditions, and remediation well enough to call it correctly. The only omissions are the dry_run escape hatch and any pointer to sibling tools for diagnosing the failure.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents 'domain' and 'dry_run' including the validate-only semantics. The description adds nothing about either parameter — notably never mentioning that dry_run exists as a safe probe before a real re-queue. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('Re-queue a domain') plus the precise scope that separates it from connect_domains_to_cloudflare: a move that already failed or was skipped. It stops just short of naming the sibling tools it must not be confused with, so differentiation is inferred from the condition rather than spelled out.

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?

It clearly defines the use case (a Cloudflare move that failed or was skipped) and enumerates the cases where the call will not work: already connected, already in progress, or domain no longer in the account. It also gives an actionable prerequisite ('fix the underlying reason first, e.g. disable DNSSEC'), though it never points at an alternative tool such as preview_cloudflare_move when the failure cause is unknown.

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