dhp_recover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the precondition (orphaned handoff from a dead worker) and the return payload (lease plus last checkpointed state). It does not state the mutation side effects (lease re-assignment, state changes to the handoff record) or authorization requirements.

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 tight sentences: purpose and precondition front-loaded, return value second. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained (though the description mentions them anyway). Given no annotations and zero parameter coverage, the definition still leaves out mutation semantics and sibling routing, which matter for a lease-mutating recovery operation.

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% for both handoff_id and worker_id, so the description must compensate. It never mentions either parameter, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. Two undocumented required params at zero coverage is a real gap.

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 and resource ('Recover an orphaned handoff') with the triggering condition ('worker died'). It does not name or distinguish itself from the closely-related sibling dhp_claim, which is likely the alternative for non-orphaned handoffs.

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?

The parenthetical '(worker died)' implies the usage condition, so the agent can infer when to reach for this tool. However, it never explicitly contrasts with dhp_claim or dhp_status, nor states any exclusion or prerequisite, leaving the choice between siblings to inference.

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