migration_retryFailedJobs

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

Discloses the return value structure (total count and per-batch breakdown) which is necessary given the lack of output schema, but fails to clarify critical behavioral aspects: whether this triggers immediate execution or just resets counters, idempotency characteristics, or error handling when no failed jobs exist.

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 two-sentence structure efficiently communicates the action and return value without redundancy. However, the failure to address the empty parameter schema in relation to the batch scope represents a missed opportunity to prevent invocation errors.

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?

Adequately covers the core operation for a batch mutation tool but leaves significant gaps: it does not explain the batch selection mechanism (critical given zero parameters), side effects, or how this coordinates with migration_getBatchFailures. Given the tool complexity and lack of annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. However, the description mentions operation occurs 'in one or more batches' without clarifying that batches are automatically discovered rather than specified via parameters, creating potential confusion about whether parameter input is required.

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?

Clearly identifies the specific action (reset retries) and target resource (failed migration jobs in batches), distinguishing it from generic job tools like job_setRetries through its batch-oriented scope. Falls short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with sibling migration tools or clarify the implicit batch selection mechanism.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like job_setRetries or migration_resumeBatch, nor does it mention prerequisites such as checking batch status or failures first. The workflow context is completely absent.

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