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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious consequence: the product default Safe becomes 1/2 with threshold 1 and owners [agent, this recovery]. What it omits is what happens to a pre-existing recovery label with the same name (overwrite vs. add) and any permission/auth requirements for a write 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the side effect and the flag semantics. Each sentence carries information; only the terse '1/2: threshold 1, owners = [...]' shorthand requires parsing effort.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the resulting Safe configuration, and the make_default behavior. It leaves open the overwrite/idempotency semantics and the return value, which are the remaining unknowns an agent might want.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description only adds marginal meaning by connecting make_default to get_safe_defaults, which the schema's own text ('Prefer this label for default Safes') essentially covers.

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 gives a specific verb pair and resource: 'Save or update a recovery address for this user,' which is clearly distinct from the sibling tools list_recovery_owners and remove_recovery_owner. It also states the downstream effect on the Safe, so an agent knows exactly what operation this is without opening the schema.

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 gives a concrete condition for the make_default flag ('Use make_default=true to prefer this label in get_safe_defaults'), which is real usage guidance tied to a named sibling. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over remove_recovery_owner or when re-calling it is inappropriate.

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