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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure and does it well: it warns that the old token stops working and instructs the agent to save the new token and avoid leaking it in chat. This gives meaningful operational context beyond simply naming the action.

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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the invalidation consequence and essential handling instructions. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose, behavior, and a security caveat. However, it does not describe the expected response format or clarify how the returned token appears, and the parameter semantics gap for handle and email makes the description incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three required parameters. It only indirectly covers the code parameter by mentioning a recovery code, while handle and email are never explained, leaving their roles ambiguous. The description does not provide enough parameter-level meaning to make up for the empty schema.

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 clearly states the action: exchanging a recovery code for a new token, and adds the important consequence that the old token stops working. It is clearly about a token recovery flow, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as recover_token or rotate_token, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this after obtaining a recovery code, and the description gives a firm operational instruction not to paste the token in chat. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of recover_token or rotate_token, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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