Resubmit specific test runs for an ElevenLabs agent using its test invocation ID, optionally overriding agent config to retry failed or updated evaluations.
Resubmit Tests
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID to resubmit tests for | |
| branch_id | No | ||
| test_run_ids | Yes | List of test run IDs to resubmit | |
| test_invocation_id | Yes | The id of a test invocation. This is returned when tests are run. | |
| agent_config_override | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write that is not destructive. The description adds nothing about what resubmission entails, whether it creates new test invocations, what happens to prior results, or any side effects. With annotations providing basic safety profile, the near-total absence of behavioral context beyond that is a significant gap.
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?
The description is two words, which is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or front-loaded information needed for correct invocation.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It omits essential context such as what resubmission does, required IDs, and expected behavior, making it impossible for an agent to use confidently.
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 60%, leaving gaps such as branch_id and agent_config_override undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter information at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters. The baseline for 60% coverage without description help is below 3.
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 'Resubmit Tests' merely restates the tool name (resubmit_tests_route) with no added specificity, scope, or distinction from siblings like run_agent_test_suite_route or create_agent_response_test_route. An agent cannot tell from the description what 'tests' means here (test runs, test invocations, test suites) or what resubmission implies.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_agent_test_suite_route or create_agent_response_test_route. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.