retry_parallel_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It hints that recovery applies to terminated and fully completed workers, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, idempotency, what state changes occur, or what the caller gets back.

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?

It is a single sentence with no structural front-loading or elaboration, which is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a two-parameter recovery operation with no annotations.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and a cryptic one-line description, the definition is far from complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool reliably. Key information about parameters, behavior, and return effects is entirely absent.

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 mention either parameter. The required account_id and optional courses array are completely undocumented, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the bare schema 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 gives a verb ('Recover') and an object ('worker'), but the objects are obscure internal terms ('terminated startup worker', 'orderly fully completed course worker') and it never mentions the tool's actual resource, the parallel account. It does not distinguish this from many sibling recovery/resume tools such as recover_current_task, recover_terminal_media_account, 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?

There is an implied condition ('terminated' or 'fully completed'), but no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or when not to use this tool. An agent cannot tell from this sentence how it differs from the numerous other recovery and resume tools.

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