retry_content

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the artifact transitions back to a generating state (asynchronous), that failure can recur on the provider side, and that id stability is the whole point. It does not state preconditions such as whether the artifact must currently be in a failed state, nor whether repeated retries are idempotent or rate-limited.

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 tight sentences with the identity-preserving behavior front-loaded ahead of the alternative and the follow-up. Minor waste: "RPC-backed" carries little decision value for an agent, and the follow-up names "list_content" while the sibling is content_list, which could slow routing slightly.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation-ish tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, alternative, state change and failure mode. The remaining gap is precondition/error behavior — what happens if the artifact is not in a failed state or a retry is issued while one is in flight.

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 100%, so content_id, notebook_id and notebook_url are already documented, including that the two notebook fields are alternatives. The description reinforces that content_id must be the same id but adds no new semantics about the notebook parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Retry a Studio generation that failed") and states the key invariant ("keeping the same content id"), which cleanly separates it from content_generate and content_delete. An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without inspecting 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?

It gives an explicit preference rule with a concrete reason: use this instead of deleting and regenerating because that mints a new id and invalidates held references. It also tells the agent what to do after the call (poll for the outcome), so both the choice and the follow-up are covered.

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