agy_discussion_recover

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: restoration is conditional on a verified matching successful run, recovery audit is retained, and the tool never retries models or refunds attempts. These are important operational boundaries for an agent.

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 three efficient sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. It stays concise while conveying the main recovery condition and constraints, though the language is dense with domain jargon.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies adequate behavioral context. However, it leaves the required discussion_id parameter unexplained and does not describe the return or audit result, leaving a clear gap for invocation guidance.

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% and the description never explains the sole required parameter, discussion_id. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying what the parameter identifies or accepts, but it does not.

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 (reconcile/restore) and resource (interrupted messages or failed delivery with linked terminal runs), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling discussion tools, but the recovery-specific action is reasonably identifiable.

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 description implies the tool is for failed/interrupted messages and notes it only restores from a verified matching successful run. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agy_discussion_read or agy_run, nor does it name exclusions beyond 'never retries models or refunds attempts'.

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