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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent creation tool. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the link works for anyone, requires no account or extension, and recordings are sent to the workspace. It does not cover expiry behavior or permission constraints.

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 with no wasted text, and the core action is front-loaded before the usage example. Every sentence contributes either capability or context.

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 core purpose and usage context are complete enough for an agent to call the tool, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what is returned, and the undocumented expires_in_days parameter leaves a gap around link lifetime.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents title, message, and external_ref well. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, and expires_in_days remains undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a link that anyone can open to record their screen and send it to this workspace. It also scopes the behavior with 'no account or extension,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/get tools and from open_recording.

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 explicitly gives the intended use case: 'Use it to ask for a clearer repro, such as the same steps with the console open or on another browser.' This is clear usage context, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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