tokportal_retry_webhook_delivery

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

With minimal annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it resends to the endpoint's current URL, generates a fresh signature, and preserves the event ID for idempotent processing. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail potential side effects like creating a new delivery record.

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 and front-loads the primary verb and resource ('Retry a webhook delivery'). Every sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description explains the main behavior but lacks information about the return value, which is important since there is no output schema. It also doesn't mention potential failure conditions or prerequisites. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves gaps in response expectations.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little context (e.g., 'endpoint's current URL' and 'fresh signature' relate to id and delivery_id), but it doesn't significantly enhance the parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 action with a specific verb ('Retry') and resource ('webhook delivery'), and elaborates by explaining it resends the stored payload to the endpoint's current URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhook_deliveries or test_webhook_endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Although no explicit alternatives are mentioned, the description implies usage for retrying failed deliveries by describing the resend behavior and preservation of the event ID. This provides clear context without exclusions, but it could be stronger by explicitly stating when to use this instead of test_webhook_endpoint.

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