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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that new agent_secret AND new recovery_code are minted, that old sessions are revoked, and that the current MCP session is authenticated immediately. These are the exact consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive=true, non-idempotent operation.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and its inputs, followed by the side effects. No filler.

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 two-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers inputs, credential rotation, session invalidation, and post-call auth state — everything needed to call it safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it does so partly by qualifying recovery_code as "one-time" (single-use semantics not in the schema) and by tying both params to the recovery flow. It still doesn't say whether the newly minted secret/code are returned in the response versus stored elsewhere.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Recover an account") with concrete inputs named in the same sentence. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like sign_in or rotate_secret, which also mint or change credentials.

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 phrase "using handle and one-time recovery_code" implies a prerequisite (you must already hold a recovery code) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs sign_in/sign_up/rotate_secret guidance, and no note on what to do if recovery fails.

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