UpdateComputerRecoveryToken

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Edit a recovery token' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this description provides essentially no behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just three words ('Edit a recovery token'), which is appropriately sized for such a simple statement. It's front-loaded with the core action, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by stating the basic operation.

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 the tool's mutation nature, two required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a recovery token is, what fields can be edited, what permissions are needed, or what happens after the update. The context demands much more information than this minimal description provides.

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 has 0% description coverage for both parameters (id and body), and the tool description adds no information about parameter meaning or usage. The description doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., token identifier) or what 'body' should contain (e.g., which token properties can be updated). With two required parameters and no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Edit a recovery token' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'UpdateComputerRecoveryToken' without adding meaningful specificity. It uses the generic verb 'Edit' instead of clarifying what kind of update operation this performs on a recovery token, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'CreateComputerRecoveryToken' or other update tools in the list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing token ID), when this tool is appropriate compared to creating or deleting tokens, or any context about recovery token management. With many sibling tools including create and delete operations for recovery tokens, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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