restart_stage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that the call returns a confirmation message, but it does not warn that the operation is non-idempotent, meaning repeated restarts could produce duplicate executions.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by the use case and the required inputs. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately notes the confirmation-message return and lists required inputs, so an agent has enough to invoke it. It omits the significant caveat that the operation is non-idempotent and what happens if the stage is already running, which would complete the picture for a mutation 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents execution_id and stage_id. The description only restates that these IDs are required, adding no format, constraint, or state-precondition detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Restart a specific failed or completed stage within a pipeline execution') and scopes it clearly against re-running the whole pipeline. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like trigger_pipeline or resume_execution without opening a schema.

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 concrete when-to-use condition ('retry a stage that failed due to a transient error') and implicitly rules out full-pipeline re-runs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., a stage that failed for a non-transient reason) or name the nearest alternative tool.

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