create_request_by_request_id_retry

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent mutation that is not destructive. The description adds the HTTP method, endpoint, and the 'failed request' precondition, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if the request is not in a retryable state.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section is redundant with the schema, but the overall size is appropriate and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks guidance about when retrying is appropriate and how it relates to other request lifecycle tools. An agent could still call it correctly for a failed request, but may choose it incorrectly in edge cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the schema's parameter title ('Request ID') without adding extra meaning. It does not explain what the request_id refers to, where to obtain it, or any format or selection considerations.

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 clearly states the action ('Retry failed request') and the resource (a request identified by request_id), and the endpoint confirms the target. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but 'retry' is a distinct enough operation.

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?

The phrase 'failed request' implies this tool is for retrying requests that have failed, but it does not explain when to choose this over alternatives like create_request_by_request_id_by_status or update_request_by_request_id. No exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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