End session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions confirmation before stopping and the return of a summary, which is helpful. However, it does not explain what happens if confirmation is not provided, whether the session can be resumed, or any side effects (e.g., unsaved data). This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that leads with the primary action. Every part is necessary: the action, the confirmation gate, and the output summary. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the output schema exists (so return values need not be described), and the description covers the core behavior and parameter roles. It falls slightly short of fully complete because it does not explicitly address alternatives or the implications of the confirmation default, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does so by linking 'recording and/or streaming' to the stop_recording and stop_streaming flags, and 'after confirmation' to the confirm parameter. This provides context beyond the bare parameter names, though it does not explain defaults or the exact consequences of each combination.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to stop recording and/or streaming after confirmation and return a session summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stop_recording' and 'stop_stream' by emphasizing the session-level scope and the final summary.

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 usage context (ending a recording/streaming session with confirmation and a summary) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives like 'stop_recording' or 'stop_stream'. It lacks clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, especially since siblings exist for individual stop actions.

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