Rerun pipeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation queues a full rerun and mentions a limitation (no failed-job-only rerun). However, it does not mention that confirm must be true to execute, nor does it describe side effects or response behavior. It is somewhat transparent but leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the limitation is added as a clarifying note. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description explains the purpose and a key limitation, but lacks details about required confirmation, the meaning of 'resolved resources', and what happens after queuing. Given it's a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent might need more context to invoke it correctly. However, the sibling tools (like get_pipeline_run) provide some contextual expectations. It is adequate but not complete.

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 only 25% (only 'confirm' is documented). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning. It mentions 'resolved resources of a previous run' but does not explain which parameters correspond to that concept. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to provide additional semantics for runId, pipelineId, or project.

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 verb ('Queue') and the specific resource ('a full rerun using the resolved resources of a previous run'). It distinguishes from siblings like run_pipeline by emphasizing 'rerun' and 'previous run', and further differentiates by noting that failed-job-only reruns are not available via Azure REST. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 to use this tool: when you need a full rerun of a previous run. It explicitly excludes failed-job-only reruns, telling the agent that this tool is not for that use case. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like run_pipeline for new runs, but the sibling context makes that clear. The guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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