resubmit_run

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

With no annotations, the description covers valid run statuses and the original inputs retry. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original run is modified or a new run is created) or authorization needs.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, conditions, prerequisite. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key action.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior, conditions, and a prerequisite. It lacks details on return value or error cases, but is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context for workflowName (required for Standard SKU) but this matches the schema's description. No significant additional meaning beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Resubmit' and the resource 'workflow run', and specifies the condition 'with the original inputs'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_run' and 'get_run_details' by mentioning to use 'get_run_details' first.

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 explicit conditions (status Failed, Cancelled, or Succeeded), a SKU-specific requirement (workflowName for Standard), and a prerequisite action (use get_run_details to check status). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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