Add App Recovery Targeting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add targeting' implies a mutation, and 'Disabled in read-only mode' reinforces that this is a write operation. However, it does not disclose whether existing targeting is replaced or merged, what permissions are required, or any side effects beyond the immediate add.

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 no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the read-only warning is a valuable, directly relevant behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The presence of an output schema and full input schema coverage reduces the description's burden for return values and parameters. Still, the description lacks context about the lifecycle of app recovery targeting, such as whether targeting should be added before deployment or whether it can be updated multiple times, which would help an agent use it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for package_name, app_recovery_id, and targeting. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add targeting') and a specific resource ('an app recovery action'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like create_app_recovery, deploy_app_recovery, and cancel_app_recovery because it targets the targeting step specifically.

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 phrase 'Disabled in read-only mode' explicitly communicates a when-not condition, which is useful context. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over sibling tools, such as creating a recovery action first or how this relates to other recovery operations.

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