add_app_recovery_targeting

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait (it is a write operation disabled in read-only mode). But it does not mention side effects, whether targeting is additive or overwrites, or any permissions required. Since no annotations exist, it bears the full burden and only partially fulfills it.

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, using only two short sentences. It conveys the essential purpose and a critical constraint without any redundant or irrelevant information, making it easy to parse.

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 existing output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks broader context such as what 'targeting' entails, the effect on an existing recovery action, or typical use cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters, covering their semantics. The description does not add any additional meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage. No extra clarification or examples are given.

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 clearly states the action: 'Add targeting to an app recovery action.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('app recovery action'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from many sibling tools that operate on other entities or perform different operations.

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?

It provides one explicit usage constraint: 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which tells the agent when not to use it. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_app_recovery, list_app_recoveries) and does not describe prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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