Replay Webhook Event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the action is a queueing operation, that manual replay does not schedule automatic retries, and that a disabled webhook fails the call. It stops short of describing the response shape, idempotency, or errors beyond the disabled-webhook case, so it is not perfect, but the disclosed behaviors are concrete and decision-relevant.

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 organized into bolded Purpose, NOT for, and When to use sections, front-loading the core action before exclusions and preconditions. Each sentence adds distinct information and the length is justified by the need to disambiguate from several sibling tools.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, prerequisites, and parameter sourcing comprehensively. The only notable gap is the lack of any statement about the response or success/failure indicators, which would be useful but is not critical for selecting or invoking the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with simple descriptions. The description adds value by stating that eventId should be obtained from list-webhook-events and that webhookId must reference an enabled webhook, which is guidance the schema does not provide.

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 leads with a specific verb and object: 'Queue one more delivery of a webhook event to its endpoint' and anchors it to the dashboard's Replay button for instant recognition. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get-webhook-event and list-webhook-event-attempts, so an agent can tell exactly which operation this is even among many webhook 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 'NOT for' section names the exact alternative tools and the 'When to use' section gives concrete scenarios (after fixing endpoint, failed/missed delivery). It also states a critical precondition (webhook must be enabled) and tells the agent to source eventId from list-webhook-events, leaving no ambiguity about invocation context.

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