restart_action

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true). The description adds useful context: approval requirement and that it re-runs with the same arguments as the original execution, which provides caution beyond the raw 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and includes the essential caveat. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, the approval requirement, and the re-run semantics, which is adequate for a simple one-parameter tool. It omits details like return format, but with an output schema present, those are not strictly necessary.

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 only parameter, execution_tracking_id, is referenced in the description, tying it to the action being restarted. However, it does not explain how to obtain the ID or its format, leaving some ambiguity despite the low 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 verb and resource: 'Restart a previously executed OliveTin action by its execution_tracking_id.' It distinguishes from siblings like start_action_async (new execution) and kill_action by focusing on re-running an existing execution.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use (for re-running a previously executed action) and the key caveat that human approval is required and it re-triggers a real action. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use.

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