request_recovery_codes_reset

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the reset is deferred until next login and by stating the own-identity authorization requirement.

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 tight sentences plus the endpoint reference. The action and authorization constraint are front-loaded with no wasted text.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect, deferred timing, and own-identity constraint. It could do slightly more on whether old codes remain valid until next login or whether repeated requests have special 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful constraint on userId beyond the schema's generic 'identifier of the user' by requiring it to be the subject of the access token.

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 and resource: requesting a recovery codes reset for a user, plus the endpoint. It clearly explains the effect, marking the user to generate new recovery codes on next login, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar account-security siblings such as reset_password or request_email_change.

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 a clear usage constraint: only the user's own identity can be targeted, and the userId must match the access-token subject. It does not name alternative tools or explain when an administrator or another flow should be used instead.

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