Retry a failed post

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: retrying is a no-op until the underlying cause is fixed, and specific provider error codes determine whether a retry is meaningful. It does not explain what makes the call destructive (e.g. possible duplicate or re-queue behavior), so a small gap remains.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its state constraint, followed by the diagnostic prerequisite and the error-code nuance. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct decision rule.

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 no explanation, and the input schema documents the optional organization id. The description covers the preconditions, prerequisites, and failure-mode decision logic thoroughly; the only omission is what a successful retry actually does or the destructive side effect flagged in annotations.

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 only 50%: id_publication carries no description and id_organization has one. The description never explains either parameter; 'try a failed post again' only loosely implies id_publication identifies that post. With half the parameters undocumented in the schema, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 (retry) and resource (a failed post), and immediately scopes it to the withErrors state, which cleanly separates it from create_publication and update_publication. The contrast with the publishing state removes any ambiguity about which posts this applies to.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (state withErrors only), the excluded state (publishing means it hasn't failed), a prerequisite step (read get_publication first), and conditional guidance (fix text length or account connection first; retry 999 but not 998). This is a complete decision procedure, not just a hint.

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