regenerate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains that the tool re-enqueues the workflow, applies overrides, and re-randomizes seeds by default. It does not mention side effects on the original asset or permissions, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding crucial behavior in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema) and the description's coverage of core behavior, it provides sufficient context for selection and invocation. It lacks details on error handling or response format, but this is acceptable for a regeneration tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining that seeds are re-randomized unless explicitly overridden, and lists common override keys (cfg, steps, sampler_name, etc.), providing context beyond the schema's documentation.

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 tool's function: 'Re-enqueue the workflow that produced an existing asset, optionally applying parameter overrides.' It specifies the verb ('re-enqueue') and the resource ('workflow that produced an existing asset'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like enqueue_workflow (which likely enqueues a new workflow) and generate_image (which creates a new generation from scratch).

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 explains the optional use of parameter overrides and seed behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like enqueue_workflow or generate_image. It implies usage for regenerating existing assets with modifications, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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