Restart A Workflow Instance (Project)

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

The description states the tool 'Terminates the current instance', which is a destructive action, but the annotations indicate destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction regarding the tool's safety profile. Beyond that, the description adds context about returning new instance info and HTTP status, but the contradiction undermines trust.

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 reasonably concise but contains an awkward phrase ('restart a action') and includes the full endpoint URL, which is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose. It is front-loaded with the core action and returns info, making it efficient for an agent.

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, no explicit prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned. The description covers the basic action and return, but given the tool's complexity (mutation, 3 params) and the annotation contradiction, it lacks completeness. Does not explain side effects or what happens to the old instance beyond 'terminates'.

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 three string parameters (company_id, project_id, id). The description merely repeats that these are required, adding no additional semantic meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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: it terminates the current instance and starts a new one from the beginning. It specifies the resource (workflow instance), the verb (restarts), and includes API details (HTTP 201, endpoint). This distinguishes it from 'restart_a_workflow_instance_company' by context, but the purpose is unequivocal.

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' and lists required parameters, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'terminate_a_workflow_instance_project' or 'respond_to_a_workflow_instance_project'. No guidance on when not to use it or when alternatives are better.

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