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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behaviors. It does mention that the tool 'marks it recoverable/errored', which is a meaningful state-change disclosure. However, it does not clarify whether this is a destructive or reversible operation, what conditions are required (e.g., job must exist), or what happens on failure, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with the core action and augmented with a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key side effect. However, it does not explain the return value, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., the job must be in an ingest pipeline), leaving modest gaps that could confuse an agent on first use.

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?

The schema provides only a 'job_id' string with no description, and the tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter. However, the phrase 'stuck/errored ingest job' implies that job_id identifies such a job, and the parameter name is self-explanatory. This adds marginal meaning beyond the schema but does not cover format requirements or how to obtain the ID.

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 tool's function: 'Attempt to recover a stuck/errored ingest job'. It specifies a concrete verb ('recover'), a target resource ('ingest job'), and a condition ('stuck/errored'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools that focus on listing, creating, or managing jobs, not recovery. The parenthetical 'marks it recoverable/errored' adds a clear side effect, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly provides usage context by specifying the tool is for 'stuck/errored' ingest jobs, which tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., do not use for active jobs) or mention alternative tools like list_jobs or job_status, so it stops short of being a full 5.

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