Rerun a workflow

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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: write-mode requirement, Forgejo 17+/Gitea version gate, the fact that an unsupported instance returns its version and reruns nothing, and the refusal on in-progress runs. It also describes the return value as the run in list_workflow_runs' shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and the job-scoped alternative, with no filler sentences. The first sentence is dense with em-dash clauses and parentheticals, which costs a little readability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the response shape (list_workflow_runs' shape) and the failure modes. Combined with the version gate and prerequisite coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly or report why it failed.

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% and the schema already documents that run_id is required even with job_id and that job_id reruns the job plus its dependents, so the description largely mirrors it. The cross-references to list_workflow_jobs and list_workflow_runs are useful but duplicate schema text, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Rerun a finished Actions workflow run') and immediately defines the two scopes: whole run vs. a single job plus its dependents. This clearly separates it from get_workflow_run and cancel_workflow_run among the siblings.

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?

Specifies the conditions precisely: requires write mode, requires the run to be finished ('A run still in progress is refused — cancel it first', routing to cancel_workflow_run), and points to list_workflow_jobs as the source of job_id. It also documents the version prerequisite and the failure behavior when the endpoint is missing.

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