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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: authentication requirement (signed-in session) and that a current code must be confirmed. It also states the destructive nature ('replace all recovery codes' implies old codes are invalidated) and the return value ('Returns the 10 new codes once'). This is strong for a tool with no 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 sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then the effect and return. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides necessary context: session requirement, confirmation step, destructive replacement, and return format. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but for a simple 1-param tool this is largely complete.

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 compensate. It does so by explaining that the 'code' parameter is a current recovery code that must be confirmed before replacement. It doesn't specify format or length (schema handles that), but adds essential semantic meaning about what the parameter represents.

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 and resource: 'replace all recovery codes'. This is unambiguous and clearly distinguished from sibling MFA tools (mfaSetup, mfaEnable, mfaDisable) which handle different lifecycle stages. An agent can tell exactly what this operation does.

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 the precondition 'Signed-in session only' and 'after confirming a current code', giving clear context for when this tool applies. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but given the distinct MFA siblings, the condition is sufficient.

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