replay_webhook_delivery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value the annotations lack: the required scope `webhooks:write` and the fact that replay creates a *new* delivery record rather than reusing the old one. It stops short of saying what happens to the original delivery or how failures are reported.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the auth prerequisite second. Nothing is wasted, though given the parameter gaps the brevity is somewhat at the expense of necessary detail.

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?

Covering a mutation with 2 params and no output schema, the description conveys the essential action and auth scope but omits replay-specific behavior: whether the original delivery is affected, delivery ordering, and what happens for already-succeeded deliveries. Adequate to invoke, incomplete to call confidently.

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 0% for both required parameters (id, deliveryId), so the description must carry the burden. It hints that `id` is the webhook id and that a delivery is selected, but never explicitly maps `id`/`deliveryId` to their roles or clarifies whether `id` is a webhook or delivery identifier.

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 — re-queuing the same message as a new delivery record — with the key mechanism (same webhook-id, new delivery). It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like test_webhook_endpoint, which is the most likely point of confusion for an agent.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer this replays an existing delivery in contrast to test_webhook_endpoint, but the description never says so, leaving the critical distinction unstated.

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