deploy_app_recovery

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

This is a mutation tool with no annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral trait mentioned is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which signals a write operation. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., irreversible deployment, user impact), required permissions, or rate limits. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent of the tool's behavioral implications.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences with zero unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core action; the second adds a critical constraint. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's purpose and key limitation.

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 complexity (2 params, no nested objects), the description does not provide sufficient context. It fails to explain the deployment workflow—e.g., that an app recovery must be created and targeted before deployment—or what happens upon success/failure. While an output schema exists (assumed to describe results), the description lacks essential context about timing, dependencies, and side effects. This is incomplete for a mutation tool in a broader lifecycle.

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 fully documents both parameters ('package_name' and 'app_recovery_id') with descriptions that cover their meaning ('App package name' and 'App recovery action ID'). The tool description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; there is no gap that the description must compensate for.

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 primary function: 'Deploy an app recovery action to users.' This uses a specific verb ('deploy') and a resource ('app recovery action'), distinguishing it from related siblings like 'create_app_recovery' (which creates the action) and 'cancel_app_recovery' (which cancels). The phrasing is unambiguous, though it could further clarify the exact scope (e.g., whether 'to users' implies all users or targeted groups).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_app_recovery' or 'add_app_recovery_targeting'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical contexts, or exclusions. The only hint is the read-only mode restriction, but that is a constraint rather than usage guidance. Without explicit direction, an agent may not know which tool to pick in a given workflow.

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