Replay a webhook delivery

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

Going well beyond the annotations (which only declare destructive/openWorld/not-idempotent), the description discloses required scopes (webhooks:write, luca:full), data sensitivity, that Idempotency-Key is mandatory with a server-generated fallback, the hard confirm:true gate with rejection on omission, and that workspace can be overridden. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a side-effecting call.

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 core effect is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the operational constraints (scopes, idempotency, confirm, workspace) follow in short, scannable lines. The Luca operation string and sensitivity label are boilerplate padding, keeping it from a 5.

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, side-effecting operation with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: the effect, the mandatory confirm gate, idempotency handling, scope requirements, and workspace override. Nothing material is missing, and return values need not be described.

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 80%, so confirm, workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema, including the server-generates-a-key behavior. The description largely repeats that content and adds nothing new about deliveryId or parameter format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Replay one webhook delivery') and clarifies the effect ('Re-triggers the subscriber's downstream automation'), which is more than a restated title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close siblings luca_webhooks_events_replay and luca_webhooks_events_bulk_replay, leaving the agent to infer that this operates on a delivery rather than an event.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of Idempotency-Key for 'safe retries' hints at a retry/recovery scenario, and the confirm requirement signals a deliberate re-trigger. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to events_replay / bulk_replay for other cases, so the agent must infer the selection rule.

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