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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it warns that the old token stops working, instructs the agent to save the new token, and forbids pasting it in chat. These are important side effects and handling requirements that the destructiveHint annotation alone does not 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the purpose, the key side effect, and the required handling. The critical warning is front-loaded and the whole description is easy to scan.

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?

The description is complete for a three-parameter, fully documented schema. Annotations cover mutability and destructiveness, while the description covers the result ('new token') and required handling, so an agent can invoke it correctly without an output schema.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing that a recovery code is being exchanged.

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 states a specific verb and resource: exchange a recovery code for a new token. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like recover_token (which issues the code) and rotate_token (which rotates an existing token) by focusing on the recovery-code redemption step.

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 description implies when to use this tool: after obtaining a recovery code, since the schema notes the code and email come from recover_token. It gives clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this only when you have a recovery code.'

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