resubmit_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Resubmit a finished job' but does not disclose what happens (e.g., creates a new job, modifies existing), permissions needed, or side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 very short (one sentence) but lacks necessary details. It is concise in word count but under-specified, missing critical information. Efficiency is offset by incompleteness.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description should cover prerequisites and outcome. It hints at 'finished job' as a condition but does not explicitly state it. No mention of return values or error cases. Incomplete for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the sole parameter 'job_id'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement. The description does not mention job_id at all.

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 action 'Resubmit' and the resource 'a finished job', and specifies 'with the same definition'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_job (which creates a new job) and cancel_job (which stops a job).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it only applies to finished jobs, nor does it advise against use on running jobs. Lacks context for decision making among siblings like submit_job or get_job.

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