spidra_retry_batch

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: only failed URLs are retried, original batch options are reused, cookies are not persisted so must be re-supplied, and a re-failure incurs no cost. That last point is a billing/rate behavior an agent could not infer anywhere else.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, each doing work: purpose, trigger, cookie caveat, verification step, cost note. The purpose and the failure condition are 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?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the side effects, the parameter caveat, and the follow-up verification path. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: why 'cookies' must be passed again (they are never stored) and that 'batchId' carries the original options implicitly. That rationale is genuine value over the field labels.

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 ('Run a batch's failed URLs again') plus the scope boundary ('the rest are left alone'), which cleanly separates it from spidra_retry_crawl_page and spidra_batch_scrape. An agent knows exactly what subset of work this touches without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — 'Use it after spidra_get_job shows "failedCount" above 0' — and names the sibling tool to use for verification. This is the when-to-use/when-not pattern at full strength.

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