record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the target scope ('all armed tracks'); it says nothing about whether recording begins immediately, whether it blocks, what happens when no track is armed, or how the operation is terminated. That is a substantial gap for a state-changing transport action.

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 short sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing redundant and nothing that could be cut.

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 zero-parameter transport action with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits failure conditions and post-invocation state (e.g. that stop ends it). Minimum viable, with clear gaps an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify.

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 states a specific verb ('Start recording') and scope ('all armed tracks'), which clearly separates it from transport siblings like play and stop. It does not name or differentiate against those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'all armed tracks' implies a precondition (tracks must be armed, presumably via set_track_record_arm), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what happens if no tracks are armed, and no pointer to the stop sibling for ending the operation.

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