Create App Recovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: the created action is a 'draft' (non-final state) and the operation is 'Disabled in read-only mode' (a safety constraint). However, it omits side effects, reversibility, and whether an edit/commit context is required — for a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is only partial disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a draft app recovery action') and a useful second sentence about read-only mode. Every word earns its place; efficient without being bloated.

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 covers return values, and the input schema covers parameters, so the description's remaining job is workflow context — and it fails at that. It doesn't explain what 'draft' means in the recovery lifecycle, what comes next (targeting, deploy), or how it differs from the recovery-related siblings. An agent has no way to sequence this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already documents both: package_name as 'App package name' and recovery as the 'CreateDraftAppRecoveryRequest resource body' with an example. No compensation needed.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a draft app recovery action.' The word 'draft' adds meaningful scope, distinguishing this from deploy/cancel operations among siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name any sibling it differs from, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its close siblings (deploy_app_recovery, cancel_app_recovery, add_app_recovery_targeting, list_app_recoveries). Usage is only trivially implied by the verb 'create'; there is no mention of workflow position, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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