voicebox_retry_generation

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the basic action but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new generation, or what happens if the generation is not failed). Adequate but not detailed.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word is necessary.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, straightforward operation) and presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention preconditions (e.g., generation must be in failed state) but is sufficient for a simple retry tool.

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 single parameter 'generation_id' has 100% schema coverage. The description adds context by specifying 'failed generation ID', emphasizing that it must be a failed generation, which adds value 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 verb 'retry' and resource 'failed generation', specifying 'with the same parameters'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like voicebox_regenerate, which may allow parameter changes.

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 retrying a failed generation with identical parameters, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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