meshy_recover_submission

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the tool only attaches an existing task and never creates one, and it requires prior verification from task history. This complements the idempotentHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 two short sentences with the key behavioral constraint front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant prose.

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 an output schema present, return-value details are not required. The description covers what the tool does, what it never does, and the necessary preceding step. It could mention a fallback when no matching task exists, but this is not essential for basic correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It ties task_id to 'verified existing task ID' and links run_dir/stage to selecting 'this exact run and stage,' giving meaningful purpose to all three parameters even without full formal definitions.

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 states a specific action ('Attach a verified existing task ID') and explicitly differentiates the tool from task-creation tools with 'Never creates a task.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like meshy_start_multiview.

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 provides clear when-to-use context ('after an uncertain submission') and prescribes a workflow: inspect Meshy task history first, then select the task matching the exact run and stage. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.

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