recover_graded_parallel_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a creditable job: it discloses that no submissions are sent or replayed, that healthy workers are untouched, and that the affected worker's hourly timer restarts. It omits failure modes, prerequisites/permissions, and what a partial or failed recovery leaves behind.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the key constraint and the exclusivity marker in caps. The phrase 'after independent exact readback' is unexplained jargon that costs the reader without adding actionable meaning.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the situational and side-effect coverage is decent, but parameter meaning and post-recovery state/failure reporting are absent. An agent knows roughly when to call it but not exactly what argument semantics to satisfy.

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 the description never mentions account_id. The reader can only infer that 'the affected worker's' corresponds to the account_id argument; there is no statement about whether the ID must be the stuck account, whether an active/owned worker is required, or what happens if the wrong account is passed.

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?

States a specific verb (recover) and a narrowly scoped resource (a stuck remote graded worker), with the 'ONLY' qualifier excluding broad recovery. It does not name any sibling such as retry_parallel_account or recover_owned_exam_worker, so differentiation is left to the agent's inference from the 'stuck / already graded' qualifier.

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 second sentence gives an explicit when-to-use condition: legacy workers that cannot hot-load because their parser has latched an already graded submission. 'Healthy workers are never stopped' implies a when-not condition, but no alternative tool is named for the other recovery scenarios in the sibling list.

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