start_recording

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the raw unfiltered signal is written, that filter settings are stored alongside for reproducibility, and critically that the amplifier's actual output is not reconstructible from anything else. This is rich, useful behavioral context.

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?

Three short paragraphs, dense with useful information, no filler. Each sentence earns its place. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence adds value about when to use, data retention, and file format.

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?

Has an output schema for return value reference, 100% schema coverage on parameters, and the description covers timing, data-retention risk, formatting, and reproducibility. For a started-recording command this is comprehensively documented.

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%, so parameters are all documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, but it does clarify the recording behavior (raw, unfiltered). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation fully and there are no undocumented semantics to compensate for.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Begin writing the live signal to disk, continuously') which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_stream, stop_recording, and start_replay. It's unambiguous what the tool does and how it differs from adjacent recording/streaming 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?

Explicitly instructs to call it at session start if data is intended to be kept, and warns about the ring buffer's short retention window. This clearly differentiates when to use this vs. when data would be lost, and contrasts with stream-only tools.

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