Retry n8n Execution

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, but the description adds useful behavior details: it creates a new execution and clarifies that the default 'loadWorkflowData=false' uses original execution data. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two concise sentences plus a compact arg list. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (retry, from point of failure) is 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and default semantics. It does not explain return values or errors, but those are less critical given the simple scope and existing annotations.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, but the description adds meaning for 'loadWorkflowData' by explaining the default's effect ('uses original execution data'), which goes beyond the schema's terser phrasing. This lifts it above the baseline.

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 'Retry' with the resource 'execution' and adds specificity with 'Creates a new execution from the point of failure'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, get, stop, and delete executions.

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 gives clear context: use it for a failed execution. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'failed execution' qualifier provides a clear trigger. Since it lacks any when-not guidance, 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.