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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core side effect (stopping) and the returned data, but does not mention whether an active recording must exist, whether the recording is persisted for later reads, or what happens if no recording is in progress.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the action before describing the return value. The em-dash aside adds useful output detail without becoming bloated.

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 a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description does state the return payload (id, commands, events, errors), which is helpful. However, it omits lifecycle context such as needing a prior ios_actions_record_start call and error/edge-case behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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 only parameter, udid, is already fully described in the schema as 'iOS device UDID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond saying 'a device', so it stays at the baseline for 100% schema description coverage.

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?

Clearly states a specific action ('Stop'), a specific resource ('action recording for a device'), and the expected output ('its id and what it captured'). The 'action recording' qualifier distinguishes it from generic ios_record_stop and device_record_stop siblings, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 verb 'Stop' and the phrase 'action recording' imply this is the termination step after ios_actions_record_start, but the description never states that prerequisite explicitly. It also does not point to alternatives such as ios_actions_record_status or ios_actions_recording_read, so usage context is only implicit.

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