obs_record_split

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the error condition (recording must be active), the irreversible nature (no undo, no rejoin), the file naming behavior (not user-chosen), and the container boundary implications. It also states that the stream is untouched, which is critical for user expectations.

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 longer than average but well-structured with a clear purpose statement and a TRAPS section. Every sentence contributes essential information (purpose, usage context, stream untouched, four traps). It is front-loaded with the primary action. While somewhat verbose, it is not redundant or wasteful.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a tool with no parameters and no output schema. It covers the operation's effect, prerequisites (active recording), error behavior (code 501), limitations (no undo, split boundary), and naming behavior. It leaves no critical aspect unexplained for an agent.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining precisely what the tool does without needing parameters. It also informs the user that the output file name is not user-controlled, which is key semantic information beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Close the recording file being written right now and immediately start the next one, without stopping the recording.' It also clarifies the resource (local recording) and differentiates from other OBS control tools by focusing on the splitting behavior, which is distinct from start/stop controls.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: 'Use it to cut a long show into pieces you can upload or hand off while the show is still going.' It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context implies that waiting for one file is the alternative, and it lists traps that cover when not to use (e.g., recording must be active).

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