full_recovery

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the recovery process: terminating the old agent, removing worktree, creating new ones, and reassigning tasks. This gives the agent complete behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured with steps and front-loaded purpose. It is concise but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 complexity and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and prerequisites (admin). Missing comparison to 'attempt_recovery' or side effects, but sufficient for most use cases.

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 description lists 'caller_agent_id' as required, but the input schema shows it is optional (default null). This contradiction misleads the agent. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but instead adds incorrect information.

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 it performs 'complete recovery of an abnormal agent' with a list of steps (terminate, remove, create, reassign), distinguishing it from siblings like 'attempt_recovery' by its comprehensive nature.

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 mentions 'Admin only' usage, providing clear authorization context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the steps imply it's for abnormal agents needing full recreation.

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