Retry Order (Resend SMS)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the order must be in waiting/created status, not all order types support retry, and some providers only support swap_number. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the precondition, and the alternative. No filler or redundancy. The most important constraint (same phone number) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, precondition, and alternative. It doesn't describe the response format, but with no output schema and a simple order_id parameter, this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (order_id is described as 'Order ID to retry'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds context about the order status requirement but doesn't add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 action ('Ask the provider to resend the SMS'), the target resource ('existing order'), and the key constraint ('to the SAME phone number'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool virtualsms_swap_number, which returns a NEW number, 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: when the order is in waiting/created status and the goal is to resend to the same number. It also provides an explicit alternative: 'Some providers only support swap_number instead, which returns a NEW number.' This gives clear routing guidance.

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