job_setRetries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the mutation nature (implied by 'Set'), the threshold effect for re-enabling execution, and the prerequisite state (failed job). Could explicitly state this modifies job state or requires specific permissions, but covers core behavioral traits.

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 tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: captures purpose, usage context, and execution requirements. Information is front-loaded with the core action, making it immediately scannable.

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?

Given the empty parameter schema and lack of output schema/annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an AI to understand the tool's role in job remediation. Sibling tools provide ecosystem context; this description completes the picture for retry-specific operations.

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 has 0 parameters (empty object), establishing baseline 4 per scoring rules. The description adds semantic context for the implied retry value parameter ('1 or more'), explaining valid ranges and intent, compensating for the empty schema.

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 provides a specific verb ('Set'), resource ('retry count'), and context ('for a failed job'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like job_setSuspension or job_triggerExecution which handle different job lifecycle operations.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly states when to use ('after fixing the root cause of a job failure'), provides actionable constraints ('Set to 1 or more to re-enable execution'), and implies this is for remediation rather than routine configuration.

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