bowire.record.stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the persistence target (~/.bowire/recordings.json), the return payload { stopped, recordingId, stepCount }, idempotent behavior with the exact non-active response shape, and the confirmation gate. That is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; the core action and its side effect are front-loaded, followed by return shape, idempotency, and the confirmation nuance in descending order of importance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the return fields itself, and the idempotent edge case is spelled out with an exact response. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that confirm=true skips the confirmation gate and that the default is a two-step flow. The confirmationToken parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('the active server-side recording'), plus the concrete side effect of flushing the buffer to ~/.bowire/recordings.json. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling bowire.record.start without opening either schema.

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 operating conditions clearly: it only acts on an active session, returns a no-active-session result otherwise, and defaults to a two-step flow unless confirm=true. It never explicitly points to the alternative (bowire.record.start) for beginning a session, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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