recover_terminal_media_account

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

With no annotations, the description does add useful behavioral context: no submissions are replayed, fresh platform directories choose remaining tasks, deferred tasks survive, and hourly reporting restarts. It still omits permissions, reversibility/destructive effects, authentication requirements, failure modes, and what the operation returns.

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 short and front-loads the recovery action before adding constraints. Each sentence carries some operational detail, though the domain jargon makes the brevity less effective than it could be.

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?

This is a complex recovery operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage. The description supplies some behavioral constraints but leaves critical gaps around parameter meanings, prerequisites, expected outcomes, and failure behavior.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. account_id, expected_course_id, expected_chapter_id, and especially enable_once_replay are left entirely undocumented, so the description provides no semantic help beyond the schema field names.

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 names a recovery action for a 'terminal media account' and adds qualifiers about OS-unlocked workers and saved media scenes. However, the core resource remains jargon-heavy and undefined, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings such as recover_current_task, recover_owned_exam_worker, or recover_graded_parallel_account.

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?

It gives one constraint: 'from an exact saved media scene only.' It does not explain when to choose this recovery tool over the many other recovery/retry siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or when recovery is inappropriate.

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