tokportal_retry_webhook_delivery

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reseeds the stored payload, applies a fresh signature, and preserves the event ID for receiver-side idempotency. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the non-destructive but mutable nature of the operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: action, mechanism, and behavioral note. No redundant or missing parts.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description covers the main behavior well but does not describe the return value or success/failure scenarios. It also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., endpoint must exist). Slightly incomplete for a mutation tool, but the core action is clear.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'event ID is preserved' relates indirectly to the idempotency_key parameter but does not elaborate on parameter usage.

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 'Retry a webhook delivery' with specific actions: resending the stored payload with a fresh signature and preserving event ID. It is distinct from siblings like tokportal_test_webhook_endpoint (which tests endpoint connectivity) and tokportal_list_webhook_deliveries (which lists past deliveries).

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., after a failed delivery) or when to avoid it (e.g., if the endpoint URL has changed). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, though the context of sibling tools provides some implicit differentiation.

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