Start recording session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by disclosing the multi-step workflow and emphasizing 'High impact: requires explicit confirmation.' However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or behaviors like handling an already-active recording, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 complex workflow tool with an output schema, the description covers the main steps and the confirmation requirement. However, it omits preconditions or error scenarios, which would be valuable for a tool that orchestrates multiple actions. Still, it's reasonably complete given the output schema exists.

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 sole parameter 'confirm' is not described in the schema, but the description's 'requires explicit confirmation' directly explains its purpose and implication (must be true). This provides crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Full recording workflow' that includes preparing the scene, verifying sources/audio, checking health, then starting recording. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_recording and prepare_recording by describing a comprehensive multi-step action.

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 for a full workflow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like start_recording or prepare_recording. It doesn't provide when/when-not conditions or name alternatives, so guidance is only implicit.

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