resubmit_flow_run

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

The description discloses that it uses an unofficial, unsupported Microsoft endpoint that may change behavior, and that the tool is disabled by default. These are important behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation, adding genuine value.

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 concise and information-dense, with a clear front-loaded action, HTTP endpoint, disabled flag, and parameter summary. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is 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?

For a write operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: parameter sources, disabled status, and API instability. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., what happens to the original run) or return behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters, including provenance (e.g., 'from list_flow_runs'). The description merely repeats this information without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage 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?

The description starts with 'Resubmit (replay) a run from its trigger', which clearly states the specific action and target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_flow_run or get_flow_run by focusing on replaying an existing run.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to resubmit/replay a run from its trigger) and includes a prerequisite (ENABLE_WRITE_OPS=true). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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