Re-run failed tests

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds two things they don't carry: the operation is 'in place' (existing run is modified) and it consumes the workspace's session and monthly usage allowance. It does not say what happens to prior results or whether the run becomes reusable afterward.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action and scope, then adds the quota caveat. No filler or restated title content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, intent, in-place semantics, and billing impact. Minor gaps remain around return value and effect on the original run's results, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one parameter ('run') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the run-ref-or-numeric-id format. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Re-runs') and a precisely scoped resource ('only the failed and errored tests of a finished API run'). The scope words 'only', 'failed and errored', and 'finished' implicitly separate it from start_run, which begins a fresh run.

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 clear triggering context, 'to confirm a fix', so an agent knows when this is the right tool rather than re-starting the run. It does not name start_run as the alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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