Replay remote event

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

Annotations already declare the tool as destructive, and the description adds that the replay occurs on the live client, which conveys that real side effects will happen. However, it does not disclose details about failure modes, state changes, or preconditions beyond what annotations imply. Given the annotations, the description adds modest value.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core action and context. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a tool with a destructive hint and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but omits important contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., having a previously captured event), how to find the sequence number, and what happens on invalid input. Still, given the small parameter set, it is minimally viable.

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 only 50%; the 'sequence' parameter lacks a description. The description mentions 'by sequence' but does not explain what a sequence is, how it relates to captured events, or how to obtain one. The clientId parameter is described in the schema. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 (replay) and the specific resource (one locally captured remote call) with a precise selection method (by sequence) and target (same live client). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like replay_recording, which replays a full recording rather than a single event.

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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool: to replay a single captured remote call on the live client. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing makes the use case clear enough for an agent to choose this over replay_recording or other remote-event tools.

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