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

Annotations are sparse (all false), so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses side-effect scope ('for only the selected resource'), return-state semantics (parked, cooling_down, healthy, cooldown counters), unrecoverable failure behavior, anonymous session constraints, and API-key/auth implications. This goes well beyond what the annotations 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and prerequisites and stays organized, but it repeats 'temporary anonymous demo' and closes with a somewhat promotional API-key line ('unlock all 62 tools') that is tangential to correct invocation. Slightly longer than necessary, but not wasteful enough to drop below 4.

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 schema, annotations, and output schema, the description covers all information an agent needs: preconditions, exact recoverable failure types, parameter provenance, session handling, auth constraints, and post-recovery next step. There are no obvious gaps that would cause mis-selection or mis-invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning anyway by stating that resourceId or resourceName should come from prior simulation tools and implying one of them must be supplied. It also restates the simulationId fresh-session rule, which is already in the schema, so the added value is real but modest.

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 first sentence names the exact action and scope: 'Recover one reversible failed resource in a temporary anonymous demo simulation.' It also distinguishes recoverable failure types (instance_down/database_overload) from the unrecoverable instance_kill, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does relative to siblings like simulation.inject_failure or simulation.step.

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 an explicit precondition ('Lower traffic to a serviceable level first'), tells where to get the ID ('from simulation.create, simulation.step, or simulation.metrics'), and states a when-not case ('It cannot restore an instance_kill'). It also recommends the next action: use simulation.step and inspect until recoveryProgress.state is healthy.

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