recover_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must reveal behavioral traits. It discloses the prerequisite (agent_id) but not what 'recover' actually does—whether it resets credentials, returns the user_id, or has side effects. The phrase 'get back in' is vague for a security-sensitive recovery operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and usage condition, but with no annotations or output schema it omits the recovery outcome and any side effects. This gap makes it minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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 a full description of agent_id ('used during registration'), and the description merely echoes this ('identifier you registered with'). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3 and no additional parameter nuance is offered.

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 uses a specific verb 'Recover' with the resource 'Freeplay account', and clarifies the exact input (agent_id) and the condition (lost user_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like register and verify_identity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('if you lost your user_id') and reassures that agent_id alone suffices. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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