Re-run a terminal (SUCCEEDED or FAILED) execution as a brand-new execution: same target, byte-exact original payload, same sealed credentials, fresh attempt counter. This is the outage-recovery path — failed calls can be re-executed without regenerating the payload. Each call creates a new execution (deliberately not idempotent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | Yes | the execution ID (exe_...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it creates a new execution, uses byte-exact payload and sealed credentials, resets the attempt counter, and explicitly warns that it is deliberately not idempotent. This is rich, honest context that goes beyond the schema.
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 adding value: the core action, the use case, and a critical behavioral caveat. No redundant or filler content; front-loaded with the main 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?
The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what it does, when to use it, and important side effects (new execution, non-idempotent). This is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage of the single parameter 'execution_id' with a useful description. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, so 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 ('Re-run a terminal execution') and specifies the resource (terminal execution in SUCCEEDED or FAILED state). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it creates a brand-new execution rather than a fresh run, aligning with the outage-recovery context.
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 provides clear context: it is the 'outage-recovery path' for re-executing failed calls without regenerating payloads. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'execute' or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute creates executions, get_execution reads one, list_executions lists them, replay_execution re-runs them, get_usage reports account usage, and list_connections manages credentials. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. The only tool without a noun is 'execute', but it is the primary verb and fits the imperative style consistently.
Six tools is well-scoped for an HTTP execution management server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the lifecycle (create, read, list, replay, usage, credentials) without redundancy or bloat.
The core execution workflow is well covered: submit, fetch, list, replay, plus account usage and credential listing. A minor gap is the absence of explicit tools for approval actions (given the PENDING_APPROVAL status) or connection management beyond listing, but these are arguably external concerns.