Restart A Workflow Instance (Company)

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral info (destructiveHint: false). The description adds that the tool terminates the current instance and creates a new one, which is accurate but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or success/error responses beyond HTTP 201. There is no contradiction with annotations, as the description's claims do not directly conflict with the false destructive hint.

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 four sentences and includes some redundant phrases like 'Use this to perform the restart a action on Workflows' and a minor typo 'Creates a new Workflows'. While not overly long, it could be more concise and free of errors.

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 detail on return values beyond 'Returns the new instance information'. With no output schema, this is insufficient. It also does not cover error states, prerequisites (e.g., instance state), or idempotency. Given the complexity of a restart action, more completeness is needed.

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% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds context that they are URL path parameters and includes the full endpoint URL, which helps an agent understand how parameters are used. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 action (terminates and restarts) and resource (workflow instance). The verb 'restart' and resource are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'terminate_a_workflow_instance_company' or 'respond_to_a_workflow_instance_company', though the name suggests distinction. Minor typo 'Creates a new Workflows' slightly reduces clarity.

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 says 'Use this to perform the restart a action on Workflows' which is an instruction but lacks depth. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., terminate or respond), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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