Retry a draft's failed media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real operational context beyond them: 'Only re-transcribes; never redrafts or sends' bounds the blast radius, and the required scopes plus the Idempotency-Key requirement are surfaced. It does not mention that the existing transcript is replaced (which destructiveHint=true implies), a modest gap.

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 purpose and scope-limiting clause, followed by compact operational metadata (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace). No filler sentences, though the scope/permission lines are dense reference material rather than prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers auth scopes, idempotency handling, and workspace override, which is most of what a caller needs. It could still clarify what 'failed' means and whether re-transcription overwrites the prior transcript.

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 60%: the two path params (id, mediaId) are undocumented but their role is clear from the endpoint template, and workspaceId/workspaceSlug/idempotencyKey already carry schema descriptions. The description's notes on idempotencyKey and workspace override largely restate the schema, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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 (retry) and resource (failed voice-note transcription for a draft's media), plus the endpoint template POST /api/review-queue/{id}/media/{mediaId}/retry. It implicitly distinguishes itself from review_queue_approve/reject/list by targeting media-level retry, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 trigger condition ('a failed voice-note transcription') is clear from the first sentence, so an agent knows this is the recovery path. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., what to do if the media is not failed, or how this relates to review_queue_list/explain), and no prerequisites for the draft state are stated.

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