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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it keeps the original test's URL, goal, prompt, and inbox config, providing useful context beyond annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't specify whether a new job ID is created each time.

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 concise sentences front-load the action, then explain the use case and behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the action, when to use, and what is preserved. Slightly incomplete regarding potential side effects or idempotency behavior, but appropriate for a single-parameter 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% with a description for jobId. The description adds that the jobId comes from submit_test or a prior retest_job, providing source context beyond the schema. It also explains that the original test configuration is preserved, indirectly clarifying the parameter's role.

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 tool 're-runs an existing test job against the latest deployment', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like submit_test (which creates new tests) and get_test_results (which reads results).

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 explicitly advises using this tool after pushing a fix surfaced by get_test_results, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., submitting a completely new test).

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