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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this mutates capture state, whether it starts recording, what happens to an in-progress step, or any permission prerequisites. For a state-changing capture-control tool this is a critical gap.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy; the single fragment plus a parenthetical does not earn its place as sufficient instruction.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two of three parameters undocumented, the definition leaves an agent unable to call this mutation safely or predict its effect. Nothing about the surrounding capture-job lifecycle is conveyed.

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 only 33% — only notification_message is documented — and the description explains neither captureJobId nor objectiveId, nor how they interact (e.g., does objectiveId identify which manual step to activate?). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Select manual capture step (start-manual-step)" names a resource but the verb "select" is ambiguous — it could mean choosing a step, starting a step, or activating a manual recording mode. The parenthetical hints at the underlying operation, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like jump_to_step, complete_step, resume_manual, or stop_manual_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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as resume_manual, jump_to_step, or complete_step, and no stated preconditions (e.g., must a capture job be paused first?). The agent has to guess from the name alone.

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