bowire.auth-recording.capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the two-step confirmation flow, the shape of the first response ({ pending, confirmationToken, plan }), and the security property that the credential is written to the local store and never echoed back. It stops short of stating error behavior or auth/permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the invocation workflow and the safety guarantee. Every sentence adds distinct, load-bearing information with no padding.

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?

Covers the essential behavior, first-call return shape, and safety property for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. Minor gaps remain around the result of the confirmed call and error handling, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining the runtime relationship between confirm=true and confirmationToken in the two-step flow, which the individual schema fields do not convey on their own.

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 (Store) plus resource (a credential as a named auth recording) and the downstream purpose (so a mock's auth requirement can resolve it by id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auth-recording.list, auth-recording.remove, and auth-recording.capture-flow.

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?

Explains the use case (persisting a credential for a mock's auth requirement) and describes the default two-step invocation and how to complete it. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with the sibling bowire.auth-recording.capture-flow, which an agent would have to disambiguate by other means.

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