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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the semantic distinction between resuming and re-running, but never warns that a retry re-executes side effects or is non-idempotent, so it adds only modest value beyond the structured data.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the strategy breakdown. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. What is missing — whether a retry returns a new run identifier or runs asynchronously — is minor given the annotations carry the safety profile.

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% and the enum values are already documented in the property descriptions, including the ap_list_runs pointer for flowRunId. The description's strategy gloss largely repeats the schema rather than adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retry a failed flow run') and enumerates the two strategies, which cleanly separates it from siblings like ap_test_flow and ap_run_action. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

Makes the trigger condition explicit — the run must have failed — and the strategy sentence tells the agent which mode to pick and why. It does not state exclusions (e.g. don't retry a successful run) or point at a sibling, so it lands just under a 5.

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