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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: the code is one-time, storing it alongside the token defeats its purpose, and possession grants full account restore until replacement. That last point implies the previous code is invalidated on replace, which the destructiveHint=false annotation does not surface. It stops short of describing error behavior for an invalid or expired token or what the response body looks like.

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, each earning its place: the first states the operation and contract, the second gives an operational instruction, the third explains the security consequence. The prerequisite and return value are 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description covers prerequisites, return value, and the security model. It omits what happens on an invalid token and does not confirm that the prior code is invalidated immediately upon success, which are the remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and there is exactly one parameter, whose name is self-describing and whose pattern is documented in the schema. The description adds real meaning by qualifying it as the *current* account token, signaling it must already be valid. It does not restate the 64-hex-character format, which is a minor omission given the schema covers it.

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+resource: it creates/replaces an account recovery code, requires the account token as input, and returns a one-time code. That is concrete and lets an agent know this is a code-minting operation rather than the account-restore operation (arcade_recover_account). It never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied: you need an account token, which tells the agent an authenticated/onboarded account is a prerequisite, and the phrase 'until it is replaced' hints at re-issuance. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to arcade_recover_account for the inverse flow, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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