tokportal_retry_webhook_delivery

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

The description clearly discloses that it's a write operation ('resends'), uses a fresh signature, and preserves the event ID for idempotency. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, aligning with the description. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of the signature and event ID preservation beyond the annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the action, the second explains what happens, and the third clarifies a key behavioral detail (idempotency). Zero 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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose and behavior. It lacks details like response format (e.g., whether it returns the new delivery object) or error scenarios, but the key mechanics are clear. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context by explaining that the event ID is preserved (implying idempotency_key's role) and that the payload is resent to the current URL, which relates to the id parameter. It adds value to the schema without repeating it.

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 verb ('Retry'), the resource ('a webhook delivery'), and the specific action (resends stored payload with a fresh signature). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tokportal_list_webhook_deliveries and tokportal_test_webhook_endpoint by focusing on retrying an existing failed delivery.

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 implies usage for resending webhook payloads but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like test_webhook_endpoint or manage deliveries. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., endpoint must exist) or scenarios where this is inappropriate. The idempotency context is helpful but incomplete.

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