Retry a billable SpicyAPI task

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructive hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is billable, requires a user confirmation round, and creates a new task rather than modifying the source. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core action, trigger condition, and a critical prerequisite (user confirmation). Every word earns its place, and the essential purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The presence of an output schema and rich annotations reduce the burden, but important invocation details remain missing: what taskId refers to, how the idempotency key should be used, and what 'requires a user confirmation round' means in practice for an agent workflow. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented taskId and idempotencyKey parameters. It does not mention either parameter by name or explain idempotencyKey's role. The phrase 'from a failed or expired source' weakly implies taskId is the source task, but this is not explicit enough for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new task') and a precise trigger condition ('from a failed or expired source'), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like task_create or task_quote. The title adds the billable quality and confirms this is a retry path. The agent can confidently infer what this tool is for.

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 description implies usage when a source task is failed or expired, and notes that a user confirmation round is required. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as spicyapi_task_create for new tasks or spicyapi_task_get for inspection. The context is adequate but the exclusions are left to inference.

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