rerun_workflow

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the confirmation-phrase guardrail, but for a mutation that triggers CI it omits whether a new run is created, what permission scope is required, and what happens to the existing run — significant gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation stated first and the prerequisite second; no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally well front-loaded.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation. An agent still cannot tell what the confirmation phrase must be, what permissions are needed, or what the result of the rerun looks like — the description is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters indirectly ('by run ID', 'confirmation phrase') but adds no meaning: the accepted phrase format, whether it must match an owner identity, or the valid range of runId are all left undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Re-run a GitHub Actions workflow run', scoped 'by run ID'. That is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling read-only tools (list_workflow_runs, list_workflows). It stops short of 5 only because there is no sibling rerun/cancel tool to be explicitly contrasted with.

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 implies when it applies (a workflow run that needs re-execution) and states a hard prerequisite (owner confirmation phrase), but gives no when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of whether it applies only to failed runs.

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