video_recipe_capture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: this is a write operation ('writer') and it is idempotent by canonical digest, so repeat captures with the same content will not duplicate. Beyond that it says nothing about where the recipe is stored, what permissions are needed, or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the idempotency note is tacked on where it belongs. It is arguably too terse for a tool whose required payload is an undescribed nested object, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the tool takes a required nested recipe object with zero documented shape, and the description never describes what a recipe contains or how it relates to the export/replay siblings — a significant gap for a capture operation.

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% and both parameters are required, including a nested free-form 'recipe' object with additionalProperties=true. The description supplies no meaning for project_dir or the recipe payload, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('Capture a workflow recipe') and adds a role marker ('writer'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical siblings video_project_recipe_export and video_project_recipe_replay, which an agent would have to disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The '(writer)' tag hints at a writer/reader pairing but never tells the agent when capturing is preferable to exporting or replaying a recipe.

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