replay_webhook_delivery

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the redelivery behavior and the 410 error for expired deliveries. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements, which are important for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is two sentences long and immediately front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides usage context and a critical limitation. No wasted words.

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 tool is low complexity (2 params, output schema present), and the description covers the core purpose, when to use, and a key error condition. It does not elaborate on parameter meaning or additional failure modes, but the output schema covers return values, so this is reasonably complete.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. Although the parameter names (subscription_id, delivery_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify their relationship or requirements, leaving the agent without additional semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Re-queue a past webhook delivery for redelivery.' It uses a specific verb ('re-queue') with a specific resource ('past webhook delivery'), and differentiates from sibling tools like list_webhook_deliveries and send_webhook_test by focusing on redelivery.

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 provides explicit context: 'Useful if your endpoint was temporarily down.' It also implies when not to use by mentioning the 7-day retention window and the resulting 410 error. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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