rerun_agent_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the state mutation ('Resets the run to pending and re-enqueues it'), a destructive side effect ('Running runs are force-cancelled first'), a failure mode (422 on completed runs), and a cost precondition (at least 1 IQ credit, fails immediately if exhausted). These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action and eligible states front-loaded before the side effects and error conditions. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, destructive behavior, and failure codes thoroughly. The only gap is the success return value — it never says what a successful rerun yields (e.g., the updated run object), which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

There is a single parameter, 'id', and schema description coverage is 100% ('Run UUID'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rerun a ... Rolli Agent run') and immediately qualifies the eligible states (failed, waiting, stuck). The verb 'Rerun' plus the state eligibility naturally separates it from start_agent_run, cancel_agent_run, and update_agent_run without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions (failed, waiting, or stuck runs) and an implicit when-not ('Returns 422 if the run is already completed'). It never names the sibling alternatives such as start_agent_run for a fresh run, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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