rerun_all_failed_tasks_for_playbook_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'mutation,' which is already implied by the tool type, and does not explain what happens to failed tasks, side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The description is virtually empty of behavioral detail.

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 very short but poorly structured: it reads as a label plus variable list rather than a coherent explanation. Every word is not earning its place because the format leaves out a clear statement of the tool's function. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

The description lacks essential context: it does not state the expected outcome, that only failed tasks are affected, return values, or any prerequisites. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description repeats playbookRunId with an example but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema. The schema's description of playbookRunId is minimal ('GraphQL: ID!'), yet the description text does not elaborate either.

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 only provides a category label and the operation name, essentially restating the tool name without explaining that it reruns all failed tasks for a playbook run. It does not add clarity beyond the name itself and fails to distinguish from siblings like run_playbook.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions. Sibling tools like run_playbook or playbook_run are not referenced, so an agent receives no help in selecting this tool.

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