resubmit_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. 'Resubmit a run' implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, required run states, or consequences. This is a significant gap for a run-mutating tool.

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 undeniably concise and front-loaded with the action, but it is almost under-specified. It stays this side of pure tautology because 'resubmit' conveys more than the tool name alone, yet there is no useful supporting structure.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do far more work. It fails to explain the semantics of trigger and flowId or what a successful resubmission returns. The definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter information. While param names like runId and trigger hint at their roles, the description does not explain what values are valid, how trigger is used, or when flowId is needed, so the agent cannot properly construct a call.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resubmit') and resource ('a run'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cancel_run or list_runs, but the verb itself differentiates the action.

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 given about when to resubmit a run, what conditions should be true beforehand, or when to prefer a sibling such as cancel_run or list_runs. The agent is left entirely to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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