ds_rerun_process_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'from the beginning' but does not disclose whether this is destructive, resets state, requires the instance to be in a specific status, or what side effects may occur. For a rerun operation that likely re-executes all tasks, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and scope in just six words, which is perfectly concise for this simple tool.

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 tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description is nearly sufficient. However, for a rerun operation, an agent might need to know prerequisites (e.g., allowed instance states) or effects on running tasks. The description provides the key differentiator ('from the beginning') but omits operational context.

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 does not mention the two parameters (project_name, process_instance_id) or explain how they relate to the rerun. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('rerun') with a clear resource ('entire workflow instance') and scope ('from the beginning'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool ds_rerun_from_failure, which reruns from a failure point.

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 'from the beginning' clearly implies the alternative of rerunning from a failure point, and the sibling ds_rerun_from_failure is easily identifiable. However, it does not explicitly state 'use ds_rerun_from_failure when you need to resume from a failure,' so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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