Redeliver a webhook delivery

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

Annotations say nothing about gating, dedupe or state; the description supplies all of it: a real event is injected into the receiving system, confirm: true is mandatory or nothing is sent, the X-Strait-Delivery id is preserved so receivers can de-duplicate, and the retry schedule restarts. It also discloses the two failure modes (409 duplicate/in-flight, immediate failure on paused webhooks).

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 a one-word operation class ('Write.'), then intent, then safety gate, then failure modes. Every sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact — no restatement of the title or schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the dedupe/idempotency behavior, the retry-reset side effect, and both error paths, plus the preview behavior when confirm is omitted. Nothing an agent needs to avoid a mistaken call 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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema ('true to send it; omit or false to preview' and 'the delivery id, from list_webhook_deliveries'), so the description adds little param-level detail beyond echoing the confirm gate. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Sends one past webhook delivery again, right away.' Scope is pinned down precisely ('one past delivery', 'to the webhook's current URL'), and 'For failed deliveries' separates it from the sibling test_webhook, which produces a synthetic event rather than replaying a real one.

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?

Explicit when ('For failed deliveries'), explicit when-not ('Refused (409) when already delivered or being sent right now'), and an explicit prerequisite ('A paused webhook must be turned back on first... otherwise the redelivery fails at once'). The only small gap is not naming test_webhook directly as the alternative for synthetic events.

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