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

Beyond the annotations (mutation, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the state transition from FAILED to WAITING, the executor timing ('next tick'), and the return semantics with a follow-up condition ('call again when remaining is above zero'). This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in 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?

Three sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the core action, then the when-to-use, then the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with annotations already covering safety semantics, the description is complete: what it does, why to use it, what state changes, what is returned, and when to call again. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return description.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It references a 'workflow node' and implies workspace context, but it never explicitly maps nodeId to the node or workspaceId to the workspace, nor does it describe formats or relationships. The self-explanatory property names help, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Retry'), a clear resource ('every failed entry at a workflow node'), and a distinctive scope ('in one call'). It also explicitly contrasts with the one-by-one retry path, making it easy to distinguish from the singular retry tool.

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 gives explicit usage context: use after fixing the cause of a batch failure, such as expired session or unreachable runner. It also names the alternative ('retrying leads one by one') instead of leaving the choice to inference.

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