Rerun Workflow Run Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation operation. It does not disclose permission/auth requirements, whether an existing run is cancelled or superseded, or what side effects occur; only the return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but there is no padding.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the core is adequate. The missing piece is behavioral context (permissions, effect on the in-progress run), which matters for a re-run mutation.

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%, documenting repo, owner (with default fallback to GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG), and run_id. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 specific verb (re-run), resource (workflow run), and scope (all jobs), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling rerun_failed_jobs_tool by implication. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'all jobs' hints at the alternative of re-running only failed jobs, but the description never states when to choose this tool over rerun_failed_jobs_tool or trigger_workflow_tool. Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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