Explicitly retry one quota-rejected GLM run

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the default-disabled gate, the one-shot semantics, the exact idempotency key (quota-fallback:<originalRunId>) that explains the idempotentHint, permission inheritance, and the 'never silently changes a model' guarantee. Refusal conditions are spelled out, which the schema and annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences, with the most important constraint ('Opt-in only; disabled by default') front-loaded. Every clause carries information, though the model-name strings and compound conditions make it heavy to parse.

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 a high-risk, quirk-heavy mutation tool with one param and no output schema, the description covers gating, refusals, idempotency, and permissions well. It does not say what the caller receives back or what happens to the original failed run, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It implies runId is the original (failed) run's identifier via 'quota-fallback:<originalRunId>,' but never states the parameter relationship explicitly or the ID format expectations beyond what already exists in 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: retry a quota-rejected zai/glm-5.3-flash pure-text run once with a specific fallback model. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like start_run, cancel_run, or status_run, which do not describe a quota-fallback retry path.

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?

Explicitly states when it applies (quota-rejected GLM pure-text run), when it does not ('Unknown, truncated, timeout or ambiguous outcomes are refused'), and that it is 'Opt-in only; disabled by default.' Preconditions are fully enumerated rather than left to inference.

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