edgegate_rerun_bg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool clones config into a fresh queued run, that artifact ids are not needed, and that a 409 is returned if an active run exists. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention return format or permissions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no redundant information. Every clause adds value: the cloning behavior, the no-re-supply benefit, and the 409 caveat.

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?

Covers the main operational details: what it does, the conflict condition, and the advice to cancel first. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is nearly complete. Minor gap: it does not describe the returned run object or how to track the new run, but this is not required.

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 50%: run_id is described, workspace_id is not. The description adds some meaning by referencing 'workspace' in the 409 condition, but it does not explicitly clarify the workspace_id parameter's role or format. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 a specific action ('Re-run an existing behavioral-gate run') and resource, and distinguishes it from creating a new run by noting it clones an already-validated config. It also contrasts with other siblings by emphasizing no need to re-supply artifact ids.

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?

Provides clear context: use when you have an existing run and want to rerun it without re-supplying config. The 409 conflict warning and 'cancel it first' offer explicit guidance on a prerequisite. However, it does not name alternative tools like edgegate_create_bg_run or edgegate_run_gate, so slight deduction.

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