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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a write/destructive operation, but the description earns credit by spelling out what that means: it EXECUTES the production task again with the same side effects as the original run. It stops short of describing return behavior, idempotency, or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical side-effect warning the agent most needs. Every sentence 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 one-parameter re-trigger tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and its destructive consequence well. It could be slightly more complete by noting what is returned (e.g., a new run id) or that the replay is async, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single required run_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description's {runId} path reference adds nothing beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Re-run one specific past run with the same payload,' which an agent can act on directly. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling trigger_reschedule_run, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied by the strong caution that this re-executes the production task with the same side effects, signaling it should only be used when a deliberate re-execution is wanted. No explicit alternatives (e.g., trigger_get_run to inspect, trigger_cancel_run to stop) are named, so the when-not guidance is left to inference.

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