processDefinition_restartInstances

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While it mentions the operation applies to 'failed or completed' instances, it fails to disclose synchronous vs asynchronous behavior, side effects (whether new instances are created vs state modified), idempotency, or return values. The mention of 'from a given activity' hints at required parameters not visible in the empty schema.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the usage context. Efficiently structured and appropriately front-loaded.

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 this is a complex mutation operation (restarting process instances) with an empty input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It should explain expected request body structure (implied by 'activity'), synchronous behavior, and response format to be complete.

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?

Zero parameters present (schema is empty), which normally warrants a baseline of 4. However, the description references 'a given activity', implying parameters (likely activityId or request body) exist that are undocumented in the schema. This partial hint without full specification creates confusion rather than clarity, warranting a deduction.

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?

Clear verb 'Restart' and resource 'process instances' with scope 'for a process definition'. The second sentence adds specificity about re-executing 'from a given activity'. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'processDefinition_restartInstancesAsync', which is critical for selection.

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 positive use case ('Use to re-execute failed or completed instances') but lacks negative constraints (when NOT to use) and fails to reference the async alternative sibling for long-running operations. No guidance on choosing between sync and async variants.

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