recover_from_outage

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the safety burden and does well: it discloses that the tool defaults to dry-run (diagnose only) and that a real retry requires two things together. It does not disclose whether retries are idempotent, what happens to partially-failed items, or rate limits.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that carry the key default and the condition for mutating. A stray '[#57cf54]' token at the end is noise with no informational value.

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?

Adequate for the retry mechanic, but the description mentions only fulfillment/channel sync failures while the schema's scope enum also covers credentials, sync_drift and all, which go unexplained. With no output schema and no required params, the agent is left guessing at scope selection and return format.

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 only 25% (just dry_run), and the description meaningfully explains the dry_run/store_uuid co-dependency for the retry path. However it says nothing about what the 'scope' enum values (inventory, credentials, sync_drift, all) mean or what 'workspace' does, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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+resource: find products in a failed sync state and retry the syncs, scoped to fulfillment or channel failures. This clearly separates it from the plain sync_to_channel/sync_to_fulfillment siblings, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives the operative condition for action versus diagnosis: dry_run=false plus a store_uuid to retry, otherwise default dry-run. Clear usage context, but no explicit when-not or named alternative tool for pure diagnosis.

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