rerun_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the rerun behavior (from start or from failed) and the conditional logic when 'fromFailed' is omitted. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to the original workflow. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured and efficiently organized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, lists common use cases, then presents input options in a logical format with bullet points. Every sentence serves a purpose - there's no wasted text. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutating operation with conditional logic) and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description should do more. While it covers parameters well, it doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or system behavior during execution. For a mutation tool with no structured safety information, this leaves important gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does this excellently by explaining the two input options (Workflow ID vs Workflow URL), the exclusive nature of these options ('EXACTLY ONE'), and the conditional behavior of the 'fromFailed' parameter. The description provides crucial semantic information that the schema lacks, including URL format examples and usage rules.

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's purpose: 'rerun a workflow from start or from the failed job.' It specifies the verb ('rerun') and resource ('workflow'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_pipeline' or 'run_rollback_pipeline' that might have overlapping functionality. The description is specific about what the tool does but lacks sibling comparison.

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 for when to use the tool: 'Common use cases: - Rerun a workflow from a failed job - Rerun a workflow from start.' It gives practical scenarios but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but could be more comprehensive regarding exclusions.

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