transfer_retry

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only mentions 'retry' and the optional auth code, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., transfer must be in a failed state), potential errors, or whether the operation is safe/reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like action.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the action and optional parameter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's action (retrying a domain transfer) and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after retry, what state the domain must be in, or what the return value means. The presence of sibling tools and the domain-transfer domain suggest more context is needed.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters: domain and transferAuthInfo. The description adds marginal value by explicitly saying 'updated' EPP auth code, but largely mirrors the schema's 'if it was incorrect previously' note. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Retry a previously failed domain transfer.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'previously failed' qualifier distinguishes it from transfer_initiate, transfer_cancel, and other transfer-related siblings.

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 phrase 'previously failed domain transfer' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., transfer_initiate for new transfers) or list exclusion conditions, though the context strongly implies the intended use case.

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