spatial_rerun_task

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds useful context: the operation 'changes spatial-service' and is admin-scoped. It does not discuss idempotency or reversibility, though destructiveHint=false provides a partial safety signal.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with the core action, scope, example, and side-effect all present. There is no filler or repetition.

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 covers purpose and side-effect, and annotations cover basic read/write safety. However, it leaves the task-id parameter unexplained and contains an unresolved dryRun reference in the schema, so an agent still has some ambiguity before invoking it.

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?

The description does not clarify that 'id' is the task identifier, and schema coverage is only 50% with the required parameter left undocumented. The confirm parameter's schema text references a 'dryRun' parameter that does not exist in the schema, adding confusion rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Re-run a task'), adds an admin scope, and gives concrete examples (failed LayerCreation or FieldCreation). It is distinguishable from spatial_run_task and spatial_cancel_task, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 admin qualifier and the 'e.g. a failed LayerCreation or FieldCreation' example imply the intended recovery scenario. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with spatial_run_task or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision partially to inference.

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