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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses the concrete side effects — the recovery date is stamped with the current date and the `uptime.incident.recovered` alert rules are triggered, which is the kind of downstream consequence the annotations cannot 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, its mechanism, and its side effect; no filler or 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows the inputs, the effect, and the alert-rule side effect. Not covered is behavior on an already-recovered incident (idempotentHint implies no-op, but this is left for the agent to infer) and prerequisites such as permissions.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the pointer to `whoami` for project_id. The description only adds 'by ID', which restates the schema rather than adding meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Recover an ongoing incident by ID') and spells out the two concrete effects: setting the recovery date to the current date and firing the `uptime.incident.recovered` alert rules. It is noticeably more specific than a generic 'update' tool, though it never says how it differs from the sibling `update_incident`, which could plausibly also change incident status.

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 'ongoing incident' implies a precondition (the incident must not already be resolved), which is real but implicit guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `update_incident`, nor what happens if the incident is already recovered.

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