Recovers a browser profile that is in an invalid state

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful context that the target profile must be in an invalid/corrupted state, but says nothing about permissions, what state changes, or whether the call is reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the use case following immediately. Efficient, though 'this method can be used to' is slightly padded.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, where it applies, and when to reach for it. Only the relationship to other repair tools is missing.

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 100% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents profileId and workspaceId (including the -1 default). The description adds no syntax, format, or naming guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (recover) and resource (browser profile) plus the scoping constraint (specified workspace), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as force_unlock_profile or cleanup_profile, which also target a broken profile.

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 a concrete trigger condition: 'recover a profile that is crashed or corrupted due to a machine failure.' That is real when-to-use guidance, but it offers no exclusions or routing to the neighbouring repair tools (force_unlock_profile, cleanup_profile).

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