studio_finish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: closing the browser, deterministic dark frame removal via ffmpeg blackdetect→trim→re-encode, transcoding to MP4 with H.264 and faststart, optional GIF export, and return of file metadata. This is thorough, though it does not mention irreversibility or any data loss beyond stopping the session.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence packs details about processing steps, output formats, and dependency, which is dense but efficient. Minor redundancy exists ('produces the final files' and later 'returns every produced file'), but overall it is concise for the complexity involved.

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?

Given the tool complexity (multi-step transcoding, optional GIF, dependency awareness) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values (files with sizes and duration), dependencies (ffmpeg), and default behavior. It does not cover error cases or permission requirements, but for a finishing tool this is sufficient.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds useful context: for 'name' it specifies 'base file name without extension', and for 'gif' it notes 'optional; default false'. This clarifies usage beyond the schema alone, though it does not provide additional format or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Stop recording and produce the final files'. It enumerates the output formats (MP4, optionally GIF) and outlines the processing steps (closes browser, strips dark frames, transcodes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like studio_start (start recording), studio_cancel (abort), and studio_screenshot (single capture).

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 implies the tool is used to finalize a studio recording, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings. It does mention a dependency on ffmpeg for advanced processing, warning that without it only raw WebM is produced. This gives context, but lacks explicit when-not scenarios or alternative tool references.

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