regenerate

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: seeds are re-randomized by default unless explicitly overridden, and overrides apply to any matching node input. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds essential detail. No waste.

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 moderate complexity with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers behavior and parameter semantics, though a note about return value (e.g., job ID) would be slightly helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the overrides map with common keys and the disable_random_seed behavior, which supplements the schema.

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 tool re-enqueues the workflow for an existing asset with optional overrides. It specifies the verb 're-enqueue' and resource 'workflow', and the examples of override keys distinguish it from similar tools like 'enqueue_workflow'.

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 description explains when to use the tool for regenerating assets with optional overrides. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'generate_image'.

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