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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: precisely what state is preserved vs. re-executed ("everything from it on is set aside and run again") and the fact that quote=true only prices the operation without changing anything.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The em-dash joining "any status" to the step-id namespace is slightly disjointed, but overall it reads efficiently.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation, the description covers what changes, when it is permitted, and the quote escape hatch; an output schema exists so return values need not be described and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps around run_id and numeric constraints remain.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does much of it: quote=true is explained as a priced dry-run, revision is tied to its provenance in get_workflow_run, and the legal step_id values are pointed at recovery.rewind_step_ids. run_id and the step_id/revision format constraints are left implicit, hence not a 5.

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 (re-run/rewind a workflow run from an earlier step) and defines exactly what 'rewind' means: prior steps kept, the named step and everything after set aside and rerun. This semantics distinguishes it in spirit from retry_workflow_run/resume_workflow_run, though those siblings are not named.

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?

Gives a clear applicability condition ("Allowed from any status, a finished run included") and points to get_workflow_run as the source of the revision. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over retry_workflow_run or resume_workflow_run, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives.

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