create_app_recovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It discloses that the tool is disabled in read-only mode, which is a useful execution constraint. However, it does not describe side effects, permissions, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits. The disclosure is minimal.

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 primary purpose, and includes a necessary caveat about read-only mode. No word 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?

The tool is part of a larger app recovery lifecycle, but the description fails to mention that this creates a draft that can later be targeted or deployed. The sibling list includes deploy_app_recovery and add_app_recovery_targeting, and without workflow context, an agent may not understand the draft's role. Despite the presence of an output schema, the description alone does not provide sufficient operational context for correct usage.

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 fully describes both required parameters (package_name and recovery) with descriptive text and an example for the recovery object. The description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Create' with the resource 'draft app recovery action', clearly specifying the action and indicating it produces a draft rather than a deployed recovery. This distinguishes it from siblings like deploy_app_recovery and cancel_app_recovery.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or the relationship to deploy_app_recovery, add_app_recovery_targeting, or cancel_app_recovery. An agent would not know when to choose this tool over other app recovery actions.

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