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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it automatically captures initial app state, adds an appLaunch step, and returns a recordingId. It does not cover permissions or failure behavior, but it is informative for this operation.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed immediately by the required follow-up workflow. Every sentence contributes useful information with no wasted wording.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return value (recordingId) and the full follow-up workflow. Combined with annotations and the fully documented schema, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters, including the category and platform enums. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start recording a new scenario on a device.' It also names the downstream tools flow_recording_action and flow_recording_save, which helps an agent distinguish this start operation from the related recording lifecycle tools.

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 gives clear workflow guidance: pass the returned recordingId to flow_recording_action for each step, then call flow_recording_save when done. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as device_record_start or flow_recording_cancel, but the intended context is clear.

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