Replay a webhook event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: required scopes (webhooks:write, luca:full), redacted data sensitivity, the Idempotency-Key requirement, and that omitting idempotencyKey triggers server generation. It does not contradict the idempotentHint=false annotation, since an Idempotency-Key makes retries safe without the operation itself being naturally idempotent.

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 verb and effect, then structured into operation/scope/idempotency/destructive/workspace lines that are easy to scan. Slightly redundant — the Idempotency-Key requirement is stated twice and the destructive wording largely duplicates the schema's confirm description — but no sentence is wasted.

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 not be described, and the annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. Combined with the description's coverage of scopes, idempotency, confirmation, and workspace scoping, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the nested body field semantics are left implicit.

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 description adds real meaning for several parameters: idempotencyKey (retry safety, server-generated fallback), confirm (mandatory gate for the destructive side effect), and workspaceId/workspaceSlug (default-workspace override). It does not explain the body.subscriptionId field, leaving one gap.

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 ('Replay one canonical webhook event') with a precise scope ('one'), which distinguishes it from the sibling luca_webhooks_events_bulk_replay and luca_webhooks_deliveries_replay without the agent opening any schema. The downstream effect ('Re-triggers subscribers' downstream automations') clarifies what the action actually does.

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?

Clear context for use — replaying a single event and re-triggering downstream automations — and it explains the workspace override mechanism. However, it never names the obvious alternative (bulk_replay) or states when to prefer this over it, so the agent must infer the alternative from the sibling names.

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