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

Annotations only indicate mutation and non-idempotency, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable context: the operation is FREE, reuses saved artwork and the original billing identity, and must not create a replacement batch. 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?

Four short sentences contain the trigger, billing behavior, cooldown constraint, and prohibition on replacement with no filler. The key fact (FREE) 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?

Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the main decision inputs: recovery availability condition, billing reuse, cooldown, and the prohibition on replacement. It does not describe the return value or how to check removalRecoveryAvailable, but it is enough to invoke correctly under the stated condition.

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?

The schema only documents packId; batchId has no schema description. The description does not explain how to obtain or validate either parameter, and it does not connect 'batch' or 'recovery available' explicitly to the batchId input, so it fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 names a specific action ('Resume background removal'), a concrete trigger ('failed/uncertain illustrated batch reports removalRecoveryAvailable'), and a clear resource (saved UI artwork). This differentiates it from generic siblings like retry_job, resume_pose, and recover_ui_pack_components.

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?

It states the exact condition for use and gives explicit when-not guidance: respect cooldown errors and never create a replacement paid batch. It does not name an alternative tool to use when recovery is unavailable, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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