transport_record

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the main action—starting a recording on a new track—but does not explain what happens if recording is already in progress, whether playback is stopped, whether the track is created immediately, or how recording is stopped. For a mutating transport command, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler or repetition. The verb 'start recording' and object 'new track' are front-loaded and every word contributes to the intent. It is appropriately minimal for a zero-parameter command.

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 command with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient and clearly identifies the action. However, because there are no annotations, it leaves out surrounding behavior such as state changes, how to stop the recording, and how this relates to sibling transport tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The phrase 'on a new track' adds meaningful context about what the recording action applies to, even though there are no formal parameters. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('start recording') and a specific resource ('a new track'), making the tool's core action clear. It stands apart from transport_play, transport_stop, and transport_pause because it is the only one named as recording. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from raw_timer_record or raw_record2nd_choice, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 should be used when the user wants to begin recording, which is basic usage guidance. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note that transport_stop would be needed to end the recording. The guidance is purely implied rather than stated.

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