rerun_action_run

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

Discloses that a new run is created with incremented run_attempt, original run is not modified, and active runs cause errors. With no annotations, the description adequately covers key behaviors, though it omits authentication or rate limit details.

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?

Single paragraph with no wasted sentences. Information is front-loaded: action, conditions, requirements, usage advice, alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers prerequisites, behavior, and alternative. Could mention the return format but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the condition on runId (must be from a completed run) and the effect of the tool, going beyond the schema description.

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 it reruns an entire Actions workflow run by runId, specifies it only works on completed runs, and distinguishes from rerun_action_run_failed_jobs. Verb+resource+scope are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly lists prerequisites (only completed runs, Gitea 1.26.0+), advises calling get_action_run first, and provides an alternative sibling tool for rerunning only failed jobs. Comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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