chatgpt_record_finish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds the genuinely non-obvious part: this is a two-phase commit (candidate selection before saving) and it '只修改本机接口配置', scoping the blast radius to local config. It omits what happens when zero requests match or on failure.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the conditional protocol, then the cancel escape hatch and scope limit. No filler and no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the calling protocol well but says nothing about the return value (does it return the saved record or the candidate list?) or the zero-match case. Those are the remaining gaps an agent would hit at call time.

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 carry the semantics and it largely does: cancel=true means abort, and candidate_id is the disambiguator required when multiple candidates exist. That is enough to use both optional parameters correctly, though neither the UUID format nor the default for cancel is echoed.

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 opening '结束接口记录' gives a specific verb (end) and resource (interface recording), and the presence of the sibling chatgpt_record_start makes the start/finish pairing inferable. It stops short of naming record_start explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 spells out the actual decision flow: save immediately if exactly one request matches, otherwise surface the candidates first and call again with candidate_id, or pass cancel=true to abort. That is real when-to-do-what guidance. It does not address when not to call it, nor how it relates to chatgpt_record_start.

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