transfer_recover

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the required prior state (process already stopped by the researcher), the warning against inferring shutdown, and the terminal-state restriction on cancellation. It does not say what 'recover' actually performs, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the hard precondition and with zero filler. The phrasing 'recover or cancel its lock' is slightly compressed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description is the only source of semantics. It covers the critical precondition well but omits what a successful recovery does (restart vs. release the lock) and any failure/retry behavior, leaving gaps for a mutating 4-param tool.

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% across 4 required params, so the description must compensate. It maps 'recover or cancel' onto the retry/cancel enum and ties the precondition to previousProcessStopped, but projectId and operationId get no mention and the retry-vs-cancel distinction is not spelled out.

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 the specific action ('recover or cancel its lock') on the lock left by the previous transfer process, which is enough to separate it from siblings like transfer_status and project_transfer. The referent of 'its' is inferable but not explicit, keeping it short of a 5.

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 an explicit precondition ('ONLY after the researcher stops the previous transfer process') plus two exclusions: do not infer shutdown from elapsed time, and a completed transfer cannot be cancelled. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs to avoid firing the tool prematurely.

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