n8n_retry_execution

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, indicating a non-destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that it 'Creates new execution while preserving original execution log', clarifying the mutation behavior and log preservation, which annotations don't cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second provides usage context, third adds constraints. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value (action, use case, limitation). Front-loaded with core functionality.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits (creates new execution, preserves logs), and constraints. Annotations provide safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent). Minor gap: doesn't specify error handling or return format, but given the context, it's sufficient for agent use.

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 100% with one parameter ('Failed execution ID to retry'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, but it implies the 'id' must reference a failed execution, which aligns with schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Rerun a failed execution') and resource ('execution'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'n8n_execute_workflow' (new execution) and 'n8n_get_execution' (read-only). It specifies the exact scope: only failed executions with the same input data.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Only works with failed executions') and provides context ('Useful for transient errors like network timeouts'). It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'n8n_execute_workflow' (new execution) or 'n8n_delete_execution' (destructive).

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