rec_profile_stop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('every live recording from this profile') and a return hint, but does not disclose behavior when no live recordings exist or what stats are returned.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the return hint. No wasted words, though the semicolon clause is slightly compressed.

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 only one parameter, an output schema covering return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials (scope, return hint). It is nearly sufficient, missing only explicit param format and failure behavior.

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 0% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description carries the burden. 'From this profile' weakly implies name is a profile identifier, adding marginal meaning beyond the bare string schema, but the format/expectation is still not pinned down.

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?

Specific verb ('Stop') + resource ('every live recording started from this profile'), with a scope qualifier that distinguishes it from the plain rec_stop sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'started from this profile' and 'live recording', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus rec_stop or rec_profile_start, and no stated conditions or exclusions.

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