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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). It discloses that re-enabling preserves per-page opt-outs, that existing recordings keep their 30-day retention, and that changes affect future collection only — exactly the edge behavior an agent needs before mutating recording state.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the permission constraint, then consequences, then retention, then scope. Every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter toggle with no output schema and existing annotations, the description covers permission, effect, reversibility of opt-outs, and retention behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 single boolean has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Disable to stop recording' and 'Re-enabling preserves...' implicitly define the two states of enabled, adding real semantic value, but the parameter is never explicitly named or mapped to true/false.

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?

States a specific action and resource: disabling stops recording 'across all pages and legacy links', scoping the operation to workspace-wide recording. Clear enough to distinguish from the read sibling get_replay_settings, though it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named set_replay.

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?

'Owner only' supplies a real prerequisite, and 'Disable to stop recording' implies the triggering condition. However, it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this versus get_replay_settings or set_replay, so usage is only implied.

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