Redraft a queued reply

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

Goes well past the annotations (destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the 3-restart cap, the auto-send risk ('the new draft can send without review'), the confirm: true rejection behavior, and the Idempotency-Key requirement. These are exactly the side-effect and retry details an agent needs before invoking a destructive redraft.

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 key behavior and the approved/sent exclusion are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The remaining scope/endpoint/destructive boilerplate is somewhat repetitive with what the schema's confirm description already says, but it is short and skimmable.

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 destructive, nested-object tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, retry semantics and workspace overrides. The main residual gap is not stating what happens to the replaced draft or what occurs once the 3-restart cap is hit, but nothing critical to a correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents confirm, workspaceId, workspaceSlug and idempotencyKey. The description adds meaning beyond it by explaining the purpose of the optional 'hint' ('what to change') and by tying idempotencyKey to safe retries and the server-generated fallback, though it does not describe hint constraints or body shape further.

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 and resource: 'Replace a pending draft by having Luca draft its turn again' with an optional hint. An agent can tell it is a redraft/replace operation, but it does not name which sibling it is distinct from despite many close relatives (luca_review_queue_drafting_retry, luca_review_queue_objection_variant, luca_review_queue_drafting).

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 useful preconditions: only pending drafts, an approved or sent draft can't be replaced, and a turn restarts at most 3 times. However, it never routes the agent between this tool and luca_review_queue_drafting_retry or luca_review_queue_objection_variant, which overlap heavily, so the when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance is only implied.

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