Retry project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses what is preserved (finished clips, transcript, source), what gets redone (re-render unfinished clips, else pick/refine/transcribe), and the return shape { queue }. It does not mention permissions, cost, or idempotency of repeated retries, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then behavior, return value, and alternative. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the branch enumeration ('re-render unfinished clips ... else pick clips, refine or transcribe again') is slightly heavy for a one-line description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the return value itself ({ queue }, the restarted stage) plus the follow-up tool. Combined with the stated preservation semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and chain this tool correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents its origin. The description adds no param-level detail, but with a single fully described parameter the baseline is 4.

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 (resume/retry) and resource (a failed or stuck project), and pins the starting point precisely ('from its furthest completed stage'). It also names the sibling it is not (reanalyze_project), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('failed or stuck project'), an explicit alternative with its condition ('To pick different clips use reanalyze_project instead'), and a follow-up step ('then wait_for_project'). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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